C I T UDAIPUR vs. PURSHOTTAM MALI

ITA/51/2006HC RajasthanRJHC01032884200521 April 2006Bench: RAJESH BALIA,RAJENDRA PRASAD VYAS2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur. The Court noted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had already dismissed the revenue's appeals for assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95 and 1996-97, as well as the assessee's cross-objection for assessment year 1992-93. The Court further observed that a similar appeal filed by the revenue (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.48/2005) concerning an ITAT order in ITA No.203/JDPR/2002 and a related cross-objection had been dismissed by the High Court on November 5, 2005. Given that the facts and issues in the present appeal were identical to those decided in the previously dismissed appeal, the High Court held that this appeal must also fail. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Udaipur, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had passed orders in four appeals filed by the revenue concerning assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97, as well as a cross-objection filed by the assessee, Shri Purshottam Mali, for assessment year 1992-93. The revenue's appeals, raising similar issues, had been dismissed by the ITAT. The High Court notes that an appeal against an ITAT order in ITA No.203/JDPR/2002, along with a cross-objection for the same assessment year, was dismissed by the High Court itself in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.48/2005 on November 5, 2005. Since the facts and issues in the present appeal are identical to those decided in the previous appeal, this appeal is also dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should dismiss the revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order concerning assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97, given that similar appeals have already been dismissed. Assessee's Contention: The assessee has not filed any specific contentions recorded in this judgment. The judgment relies on a previous High Court order dismissing similar appeals. Revenue's Contention: The revenue has appealed against the ITAT's order. However, the judgment indicates that the revenue's appeals against the ITAT's orders for the relevant assessment years have been dismissed by the ITAT itself. The revenue's counsel points out that the appeal against the order in ITA No.203/JDPR/2002 was subject to D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.48/2005, which was dismissed by the High Court on November 5, 2005. The revenue implicitly argues for the consideration of its present appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.51/2006 CIT, Udaipur Vs. Shri Purshottam Mali Date 21.04.2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. VYAS Mr. K.K. Bissa for the appellant. _____ This appeal arising out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur passed in four appeals filed by the revenue relating to assessment year 1992-93 to 1994-95 and 1996-97 as well as cross objection filed by the assessee in relation to assessment year 1992-93. The appeal filed by the revenue, raising the similar issue, has been dismissed. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the appeal against the order passed in ITA No.203/JDPR/2002 was subject matter of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.48/2005 along with the order passed in the cross-examination relating to

2 that assessment. The said appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 5.11.2005 as the facts and issues arising in all the appeals decided by the Tribunal are identical, this appeal must also fail in terms of the order dated 5th July, 2005. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [ R.P. VYAS ], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →