PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SALONI NARANG

PDF · subscribers
ITA/769/2018HC DelhiDLHC01157737201825 July 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal. Instead, it observed that the Revenue had relied on an exclusion in paragraph 8 of clause 8 of Circular No. 21/2015, which it stated was not noticed by the Tribunal. The Court directed the Revenue to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for rectification of the ITAT's order. The appeal was disposed of with the liberty to the Revenue to revive it if the application under Section 254(2) was not entertained or was dismissed. No decision was made on the substantive issues of the appeal, and the application for condonation of delay was not considered at this stage.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Smt. Saloni Narang (Assessee). The Revenue contended that the ITAT had failed to notice paragraph 8 of clause 8 of Circular No. 21/2015. The High Court, while disposing of the appeal, suggested that the proper course for the Revenue was to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for rectification of the ITAT's order. The High Court also stated that if the application under Section 254(2) was not entertained or was dismissed, the Revenue would be entitled to revive the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay was not considered at this stage.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in not noticing paragraph 8 of clause 8 of Circular No. 21/2015, which allegedly contained an exclusion relevant to the case. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The ITAT failed to notice paragraph 8 of clause 8 of Circular No. 21/2015, which it argued was crucial and contained an exclusion that should have been applied. The Revenue relied on this circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 769/2018 and CM No 29469/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Aditya, Advocate.

versus

SMT. SALONI NARANG ..... Respondent

Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

25.07.2018 Learned counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the exclusion given in paragraph 8 of clause 8 of the Circular No. 21/2015, which it is stated, was not noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. We feel that proper course for the Revenue is to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Recording the above, the appeal is disposed of. However, if the said application is not entertained or dismissed, the Revenue is entitled to revive the present appeal. In view of the order passed above, we are not issuing notice on the application for the condonation of delay at this stage.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. JULY 25, 2018/MR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →