VANDEEP SINGH SHERGILL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL PATIALA & ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3443/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01091879201421 July 2014Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had already decided the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and that the decision was against the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner intended to file a further appeal against the Tribunal's order. In light of these developments, the High Court ordered that the writ petition be disposed of as infructuous. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vandeep Singh Shergill, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decided an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The decision of the ITAT was against the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that the petitioner intended to file a further appeal against the ITAT's order. Consequently, the writ petition before the High Court was rendered infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition has become infructuous in light of the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the petitioner. (Question of fact and procedure) Assessee's contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that since the ITAT has decided the appeal against the petitioner, and the petitioner intends to file a further appeal against the ITAT's order, the present writ petition has become infructuous and should be disposed of accordingly. Revenue's contention: No specific contention was recorded for the respondents (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala and others) in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3443 of 2014 Decided on : 21.07.2014 Vandeep Singh Shergill . . . Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been decided against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner intends to file an appeal against the order of the Tribunal. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such. 3. Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (JASPAL SINGH) July 21, 2014 JUDGE J.Ram

Jawala Ram 2014.07.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →