MANOJ KUMAR PROP M/S MEDICARE SURGICAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/21/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035401200218 February 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The reasoning was based on the statement of the appellant's counsel that he had no instructions. The Court also noted that the amount involved was 'paltry'. The dismissal was granted with liberty to revive the appeal if something survives therein. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of as a consequence of the main case being dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by Manoj Kumar, proprietor of M/s Medicare Surgicals, Ludhiana, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, in ITA No.277/Chandi/93 for the assessment year 1989-90. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount in dispute was described as 'paltry'. The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had no instructions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution, considering the appellant's counsel had no instructions. (Question of procedure) Contentions: Assessee: The counsel for the appellant stated that he had no instructions. Revenue: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue regarding the dismissal for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

445 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.21 of 2002 Date of Decision: 18.02.2020 Manoj Kumar, Prop., M/s Medicare Surgicals, Ludhiana Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana 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. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.277/Chandi/93 for the assessment year 1989-90. [2] Learned counsel for the appellant states that he has no instructions. Even otherwise, we find that amount involved is paltry. [3] Dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to revive the appeal if something survives therein. [4] Since the main case is dismissed, the pending application, if any, stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 18, 2020

pankaj baweja

1.

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.20 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →