BHARAT BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12

PDF · subscribers
ITA/318/2018HC DelhiDLHC01478695201719 March 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellant must exhaust its remedy by filing a rectification petition under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act before pursuing further appeals. The court granted the appellant liberty to withdraw the present appeals with the further liberty to raise all grounds, including those presented in these appeals, in any subsequent proceedings. The court stated that if the appellant initiates further proceedings, it is open to them to urge the grounds raised in the present appeals if the occasion demands. The court also noted that in case of delay, the appeal/petition would be considered on its merits. The core reasoning is based on the established principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted first.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Bharat Bhushan Jindal, filed two appeals (ITA 318/2018 and ITA 319/2018) before the Delhi High Court against the respondent, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12. The appeals were filed against an order or action that is not specified in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the appellant had preferred a rectification petition under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court was considering these appeals on March 19, 2018.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the present appeals. The appellant sought liberty to withdraw the appeals with further liberty to raise all grounds, including those raised in the present appeals, after exhausting the remedy of a rectification petition under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue, represented by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, accepted notice. The judgment does not explicitly state the revenue's arguments, but their acceptance of notice implies they were present to respond. The court's decision hinges on the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~58-59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 318/2018 & CM APPL. 10607-10608/2018

ITA 319/2018 & CM APPL. 10609-10610/2018

BHARAT BHUSHAN JINDAL

..... Appellant

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, ..... Respondent

Present : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. for appellant. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing counsel.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

19.03.2018

Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

It is submitted that the appellant has preferred a rectification petition under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that having regard to the previous authorities that in such case, the concerned appellant has to exhaust its remedy and then avail of the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, the counsel sought liberty to withdraw the present appeal with further liberty to raise all grounds, including the ground alleged in this appeal. Liberty is granted; in case the appellant initiates further proceedings, it is open to it to urge the grounds raised in the present appeal, if the occasion so demands. In case of delay,

the appeal/petition would be considered on its merits.

The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J MARCH 19, 2018 rc

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →