AJAY GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/162/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01009974201919 February 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 decided to dispose of the present appeal in terms of CWP No.17971 of 2019 titled Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties that the issue involved in ITA No.162 of 2019 is identical to the issue decided in the aforementioned writ petition. Therefore, the principle derived is that if parties agree that the facts and issues are identical to a previously decided case, the current case will be disposed of in similar terms. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of in terms of the earlier writ petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Ajay Gupta, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was presented before the court, and notice of motion was issued. The Revenue, represented by its Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue in this case was similar to that in CWP No.17971 of 2019, titled Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others, and requested that the present appeal be disposed of in the same terms.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal should be disposed of in terms of CWP No.17971 of 2019 (mixed question of law and fact, concerning the applicability of a prior decision). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, agreed with the Revenue that the issue in the present case is similar to that in CWP No.17971 of 2019 and requested that the appeal be disposed of in the same terms. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice and agreed with the assessee that the issue involved in the present case is similar to that in CWP No.17971 of 2019 and that the appeal should be disposed of in the same terms.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 21 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.162 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.02.2020 Ajay Gupta Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. Notice of motion. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that issue involved in the present case is similar as in CWP No.17971 of 2019 titled as Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others and the same be disposed of in same terms. Disposed of in terms of CWP No.17971 of 2019 titled as Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others. [AVNEESH JHINGAN] [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE JUDGE February 19, 2020

pankaj baweja

1.

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes 2. Whether reportable : Yes PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.20 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →