THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/194/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117385201722 May 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law raised in the present appeal (ITA No. 194 of 2017) was covered against the appellant/department and in favour of the assessee/respondent by the Court's own prior judgment dated 27.02.2017 in ITA No. 270 of 2016, which involved the same parties. Consequently, the question of law was decided against the appellant. The operative direction was that the appeal is decided against the appellant based on the precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided. The court allowed documents Annexures R-1 to R-3 to be taken on record, subject to just exceptions.

What were the facts?

The appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the appellant/department) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Division Bench, Chandigarh. The assessment year in question was 2010-2011. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning the respondent, State Bank of Patiala. The High Court noted that the question of law raised in the present appeal was already decided against the appellant and in favour of the assessee by the same High Court in a previous judgment dated 27.02.2017, concerning the same parties in ITA No. 270 of 2016. The appellant's counsel stated that a challenge to this prior judgment was pending before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law raised in ITA No. 194 of 2017 (O&M) is covered against the appellant/department and in favour of the assessee/respondent by the judgment of this Court dated 27.02.2017 in ITA No. 270 of 2016. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not explicitly present arguments in this specific High Court proceeding. However, the court's decision was based on a prior judgment where the assessee would have likely argued in their favour. Revenue's Contention: The appellant/department, through its counsel Mr. Z.S. Klar, admitted that the question of law raised in the present appeal is covered against them and in favour of the assessee by the High Court's previous judgment dated 27.02.2017 in ITA No. 270 of 2016. The appellant stated that they have challenged the said judgment before the Supreme Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CM No. 11681-CII of 2017 in/and ITA No. 194 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 11681-CII of 2017 in/and ITA No. 194 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Appellant Versus State Bank of Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the respondent. *** S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J.(Oral) CM No.11681-CII of 2017 Application is allowed and documents as Annexures R-1 to R-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No. 194 of 2017 This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh in respect of assessment year 2010- 2011. It is admitted that the question of law raised in this appeal is covered against the appellant/department and in favour of the Kanchan 2017.05.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CM No. 11681-CII of 2017 in/and ITA No. 194 of 2017 (O&M) 2 assessee/respondent by the judgment of this Court, dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure R-2) in the case of these very parties in ITA No. 270 of 2016. The question of law is, therefore, decided against the appellant. Mr. Klar, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) 22.05.2017 JUDGE kanchan Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Kanchan 2017.05.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →