PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, vs. SMT. SALONI NARANG

PDF · subscribers
ITA/905/2018HC DelhiDLHC01157586201821 August 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the Revenue's contention regarding the non-consideration of Circular No. 21/2015 by the Tribunal warranted attention. Instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the Court directed the Revenue to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Tribunal. This section allows for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The Court stated that if the application under Section 254(2) is not entertained or is dismissed, the Revenue would be at liberty to revive the present appeal before the High Court. Consequently, no notice was issued on the application for condonation of delay at this stage. The appeal was disposed of with this liberty.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (Revenue) filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal pertains to an assessment year not specified in the judgment. The Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's order, arguing that a specific exclusion in paragraph 8 of Circular No. 21/2015 was not considered. The Revenue's counsel relied on this exclusion. The High Court noted that the Tribunal might not have considered this circular. The Revenue had also filed an application for condonation of delay, which was not to be issued notice at this stage.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in its order by not considering the exclusion provided in paragraph 8 of Circular No. 21/2015, as argued by the Revenue. This is a question of law. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal failed to notice and apply the exclusion provided in paragraph 8 of Circular No. 21/2015. They 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

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 905/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel & Mr. Aditya Khamparia, 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 %

21.08.2018

CM No. 33599/2018 in ITA No.905/2018

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

ITA No.905/2018 &CM No.33598/2018

Learned Senior Standing 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 AUGUST 21, 2018 tp

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →