SH.SARISHTI PAUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/126/2000HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036300200003 March 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that since both the appellant and the respondents are in agreement (ad idem) that the issue involved in the present appeal (ITA No.126 of 2000) is identical to the issue in ITA No.125 of 2000, the present appeal shall be disposed of in the same terms as ITA No.125 of 2000. The Court noted that the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the decision in ITA No.125 of 2000. Any pending applications related to this appeal are also disposed of as a consequence of the appeal being disposed of. The specific findings or reasoning from ITA No.125 of 2000 are not detailed in this judgment, nor is the ratio decidendi explicitly stated, other than the principle of disposing of identical matters similarly based on consensus.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by Shri Sarishti Paul against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh is hearing the appeal. The parties are in agreement that the issue involved in this appeal is identical to that in ITA No.125 of 2000, also titled Shri Sarishti Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another. Consequently, the present appeal is to be disposed of in the same terms as ITA No.125 of 2000. No specific assessment year, amount in dispute, or procedural history leading to the present appeal before the High Court is recorded in this judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal should be disposed of in the same terms as ITA No.125 of 2000, given that the parties are ad idem regarding the similarity of the issues involved. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant (Shri Sarishti Paul) agrees with the revenue that the issue in this appeal is the same as in ITA No.125 of 2000 and that the appeal should be disposed of accordingly. Revenue's Contention: The learned Sr. Standing Counsel and Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another) agree with the assessee that the issue in this appeal is the same as in ITA No.125 of 2000 and that the appeal should be disposed of accordingly.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

388-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.126 of 2000 Date of Decision: 03.03.2020 Shri Sarishti Paul Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Varun Isshar, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that issue involved in the present appeal is similar as involved in ITA No.125 of 2000 titled as Shri Sarishti Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another and the same may be disposed of in same terms. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of ITA No.125 of 2000. Since the appeal is disposed of, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

[AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE March 03, 2020 pankaj baweja 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.03.05 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →