Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 vs. Paras Housing Pvt. Ltd.

ITA/31/2016HC Madhya Pradesh15 February 2016Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON1 pages

For Petitioner: Sanjay Lal

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 2 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons indicated in the application to be acceptable. Regarding the substantive appeal, the Tribunal held that the questions raised and the orders challenged were identical to those previously considered and decided in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s Global Reality in I.T.A.No.40/2012. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed against the order in the M/s Global Reality case. Furthermore, the Tribunal had already dismissed several other similar appeals filed by the Revenue, following the decision in M/s Global Reality. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to grant any indulgence and dismissed the present appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising identical issues already decided by higher authorities or on which consistent views have been taken by the Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court, should be dismissed without re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of approximately 2 days in filing the appeal. The appeal challenges orders with identical questions and similar nature of challenge as those considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s Global Reality in I.T.A.No.40/2012, decided on 21-08-2015. The Supreme Court had already dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in the M/s Global Reality case. Subsequently, this court had dismissed several other similar appeals filed by the Revenue, including ITA No.44/2016, ITA No.23/2016, ITA No.24/2016, ITA No.37/2016, and ITA No.40/2016, following the decision in M/s Global Reality.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of approximately 2 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be condoned? The Revenue argued for condonation of delay, citing reasons provided in their application. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Tribunal considered the reasons indicated in the application for condonation of delay. 2. Whether the present appeal, raising identical questions and challenging similar orders as those decided in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s Global Reality (I.T.A.No.40/2012), which was upheld by the Supreme Court, should be dismissed? The Revenue contended that the appeal should be considered on its merits. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in the M/s Global Reality case and the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

260A(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA NO.31/2016 15-02-2016 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.No.2012/2016, an application for condonation of delay. There is delay of about 2 days in filing this appeal under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Identical questions framed and orders similar in nature challenged have already been considered and decision taken by this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s Global Reality in I.T.A.No.40/2012, decided on 21-08-2015. SLP filed against the order in the case of M/s Global Reality(supra) has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter following decision in the case of M/s Global Reality various other similar appeals filed by the Revenue being ITA No.44/2016, ITA No.23/2016, ITA No.24/2016, ITA No.37/2016 and ITA No.40/2016 have been dismissed by this court. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter, this appeal stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (S.K.PALO) JUDGE

JUDGE

hsp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →