THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. M/S ASCOT INVESTMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1123/2017HC DelhiDLHC01440328201708 December 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's order dated 05.05.2016, in so far as it adjudicated appeals for AY 2010-11, was inadvertent and unnecessary. The Court noted that the appeals for AY 2010-11 had already been decided by the ITAT's order dated 03.03.2016. The subsequent clarification by the ITAT in MA No. 155/2016 further confirmed this procedural lapse. Therefore, the discussion and relief granted in the impugned order dated 05.05.2016 for AY 2010-11 were considered of no consequence. The High Court disposed of ITA No. 1123/2017 in light of this clarification, effectively setting aside the ITAT's adjudication for AY 2010-11 as it was based on an inadvertent re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). This appeal, ITA 1123/2017, pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. It was clarified that a previous order dated 03.03.2016 dealt with AY 2010-11. The High Court noted that the ITAT's common order dated 05.05.2016 inadvertently adjudicated appeals for AY 2010-11, despite the assessee's appeals for that year having been dismissed by the order dated 03.03.2016. This inadvertence was later clarified by the ITAT's order in MA No. 155/2016 in ITA 384/2013 on 18.10.2016. Consequently, the relief granted for AY 2010-11 in the impugned order was considered unnecessary and of no consequence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT's order dated 05.05.2016, which adjudicated appeals for AY 2010-11, was valid when the assessee's appeals for that AY had already been dismissed by a prior order dated 03.03.2016. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee in this High Court appeal. The focus is on the Revenue's grievance and the procedural clarification. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order dated 05.05.2016 was erroneous as it inadvertently adjudicated appeals for AY 2010-11, for which the assessee's appeals had already been dismissed by an earlier order dated 03.03.2016. The Revenue pointed out that this was a procedural oversight and the subsequent clarification by the ITAT confirmed this. The Revenue sought to have the impugned order set aside to the extent it dealt with AY 2010-11.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 1123/2017 Page 3 $~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1123/2017 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. versus M/S ASCOT INVESTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Ms. Rano Jain, Mr. Pranjal Srivastava and Ms. Devina Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 08.12.2017 The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the ITAT. It is pointed out that this order – like in ITA No. 1122/2017 pertains to AY 2008-09. This aspect was clarified in a subsequent order dated 03.03.2016. It is pointed out and this Court notices that the common order of the ITAT inadvertently adjudicated the appeals for AY 2010-11 without noticing that for the said assessment year, the assessee’s appeals was dismissed by the order dated 03.03.2016. This was later clarified by the ITAT’s order made in MA No. 155/2016 in ITA 384/2013 on 18.10.2016. In above view of the matter, the relief granted in AY 2010-11 was inadvertent to that extent, for AY 2010-11, the matter was

ITA 1123/2017 Page 4 adjudicated in the previous order dated 03.03.2016, therefore, the discussion in the impugned order dated 05.05.2017 was unnecessary and therefore, it is of no consequence. The ITA No. 1123/2017 is therefore disposed of in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J DECEMBER 08, 2017 ‘rs’

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →