M/S SIDHANT DEPOSIT AND ADVANCES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/215/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084299200908 March 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals had become infructuous. This decision was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee(s) that a rectification application bearing M.A. No. 7(ASR)/2010 in I.T.(SS)/A. No. 14(ASR)/2005) was filed before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had passed an order on March 4, 2010, allowing the prayer of the assessee(s). Consequently, the appeals were disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. No decision was made on the merits of the original ITAT order. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as infructuous.

What were the facts?

These appeals, ITA Nos. 214 and 215 of 2009, were filed by the assessees, Vinod Goel and M/s Sidhant Deposits & Advances Pvt. Ltd., challenging a common order dated January 23, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The appeals pertain to the block assessment period from April 1, 1988, to December 23, 1998. The ITAT's order was in relation to Miscellaneous Applications (M.A.) arising out of Income Tax (SS) Appeals. During the pendency of these appeals before the High Court, the assessee filed a rectification application before the ITAT. The ITAT passed an order on March 4, 2010, allowing the prayer made in the rectification application.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had become infructuous. The assessee argued that a rectification application filed before the ITAT had been allowed on March 4, 2010, rendering the present appeals infructuous. The revenue's contentions, if any, are not recorded in the judgment. The question of law, if any, that the Tribunal had to decide is not explicitly stated as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: April 8, 2010 ITA No. 214 of 2009 (O&M) Vinod Goel ..Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ...Respondent ITA No. 215 of 2009 (O&M) M/s Sidhant Deposits & Advances Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shaveta Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the respondent-revenue. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 214 and 215 of 2009, filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenges common order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in M.A. No. 24/Asr.)/2007 (arising out of

I.T.A. Nos. 214 & 215 of 2009 I.T.(SS)A. No. 14(Asr.)/2005) and M.A. No. 26 (Asr)/2007 (arising out of I.T. (SS)A. No. 13(Asr)/2005), in respect of Block Assessment period from 1.4.1988 to 23.12.1998. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee(s) at the outset apprised the Court that a rectification application bearing M.A. No. 7(ASR)/2010 in I.T. (SS)/A. No. 14(ASR)/2005) was filed before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has passed an order on 4.3.2010, allowing the prayer of the appellant-assessee (s). He further states that these appeals have been rendered infructuous. In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee(s), these appeals are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 8, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →