COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DAVINDER SANDHU IMPEX LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/218/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095541201122 November 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in view of the previous judgment of the same Court in ITA No.591 of 2009. The Court found that the issue raised by the Revenue was concluded by their prior decision. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has already been decided by a High Court in a similar case, a subsequent appeal on the same issue may not raise a substantial question of law. No specific finding on the merits of the Section 158BD jurisdiction was given, as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, is in appeal against an order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A'. The appeal pertains to the block period 01.04.1996 to 05.02.2003. The ITAT's order relied on a previous judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.591 of 2009. The dispute concerns the validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) assumption of jurisdiction under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after framing a block assessment under Section 158BC in the case of the searched person.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 158BD of the I.T. Act by the A.O. was not valid as the satisfaction was recorded by the A.O. of the person searched after framing the block assessment under Section 158BC in the case of that person? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT relied on a previous High Court judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the question of law raised by them stands concluded against the Revenue by the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in ITA No.591 of 2009 titled 'Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Vs. Mridula, Prop. M/s Dhruv Fabrics, Ludhiana' (decided on 20.07.2010).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 158BD,Section 158BC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.218 of2011 Date of Decision: 22.11.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana …Appellant Versus M/s Davinder Sandhu Impex Ltd., Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 12.10.2010 in respect of the block period 01.04.1996 to 05.02.2003. The Tribunal has relied upon an order passed by this Court in ITA No.591 of 2009 titled ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Vs. Mridula, Prop. M/s Dhruv Fabrics, Ludhiana’ (decided on 20.07.2010). The Revenue has claimed the following substantial question of law, as arisen from the order of the Tribunal: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 158BD of the I.T. Act by the A.O. was not valid as the satisfaction was recorded by the A.O. of the person searched after framing the block assessment under Section 158BC in the case of that person?” Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the question of law as raised by the Revenue stands concluded against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in ITA No.591 of 2009 titled ‘Commissioner of

ITA No.218 of 2011

Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Vs. Mridula, Prop. M/s Dhruv Fabrics, Ludhiana’ (decided on 20.07.2010). In view of the above, we do not find that any question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 22.11.2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Vimal JUDGE 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 →