NIKUNJ MALIK vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099732201920 April 2021Bench: MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH,MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appellant-assessee's prayer to withdraw the present appeal. The reasoning provided is that the assessee's counsel explicitly requested permission to withdraw the appeal because the client had already availed the “Amnesty Scheme” from the appropriate authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the addition of Rs. 44,05,000/-. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nikunj Malik, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The ITAT's order had dismissed the assessee's appeal against the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Faridabad. The assessment year in question is 2014-15. The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs. 44,05,000/- made on account of investment in the purchase of property. The High Court also condoned a delay of 172 days in refiling the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assailing the ITAT's order dismissing the addition of Rs. 44,05,000/- on account of investment in property, should be allowed to be withdrawn. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) prayed for permission to withdraw the present appeal, stating that his client has already approached the appropriate authority under the “Amnesty Scheme”. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH 117 ITA-1-2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.04.2021 Nikunj Malik, Faridabad ... Appellant Versus Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANT PARKASH Present : Mr. Karanveer Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. [The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video-conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court] Jaswant Singh,

J. (Oral)

CM No.854-CII of 2021 For the reasons mentioned therein, CM is allowed and delay of 172 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. ITA-1-2021 The appellant-assessee has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the appeal of the assessee directed against the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by CIT (A) Faridabad for the assessment year 2014-15 challenging the addition of Rs.44,05,000/- on account of investment in purchase of property, has been dismissed. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant prays for permission to withdraw the present appeal as his client has already approached the appropriate authority under the “Amnesty Scheme”. Dismissed as withdrawn. [ JASWANT SINGH ] JUDGE 20.04.2021

[ SANT PARKASH ] sd JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SUDHIR KUMAR 2021.04.20 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →