COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,ROH vs. M/S VISHAVA BHARATI CONSTRUCTI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/134/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038240199911 July 2007Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of instructions. The Court noted that the appellant had requested adjournments on multiple occasions to produce a copy of the ITAT's decision in Swaran Singh's case, which was relevant to the present appeal. Despite these adjournments, the appellant failed to comply with the Court's directions and produce the necessary documents. Consequently, the Court found it unacceptable to grant another adjournment and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that repeated failure to comply with court orders and produce essential documents, despite multiple opportunities, leads to dismissal of the appeal for want of instructions. No decision was made on the substantive issues of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not specified. The procedural history indicates that on July 17, 2000, the High Court adjourned the hearing at the appellant's request to place on record the ITAT's decision in Swaran Singh's case, which was referenced in the respondent's case. This was not done. The matter was again adjourned on March 13, 2007, upon a further request from the appellant. Another adjournment has now been sought by the appellant.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of instructions, considering the repeated adjournments and failure to produce relevant documents as previously directed by the Court. (Question of procedure and adherence to court orders). The appellant's side (Revenue) sought adjournments to produce a copy of the ITAT's decision in Swaran Singh's case. No specific arguments on the merits of the case were recorded as the appeal was dismissed for want of instructions. The respondent's side (assessee) did not present any arguments as the matter was disposed of procedurally.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 134 of 1999 Date of Decision: 11.7.2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ....Appellant. Versus M/s Vishva Bharti Construction Co. Old Subzi Mandi, Rewari ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. M.M. KUMAR, J. On 17.7.2000, a Division Bench of this Court had adjourned the hearing on the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant to place on record a copy of the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Swaran Singh's case to which reference has been made in the order passed by the Tribunal in the respondent's case. The matter was to be put up after the needful was done. However, nothing was done and the matter was put up for hearing on 13.3.2007 when again a request for adjournment was made. Once again a request for adjournment has been made which cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for want of instructions. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE July 11, 2007 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →