PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 JALANDHAR vs. JAGJIT SINGH CHAUDHARY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/227/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110421201606 September 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it is bound by the judgment of its own Division Bench in C.S. Atwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another. The counsel for the appellant (revenue) admitted that this judgment covers the matter against the revenue. Therefore, in view of the binding precedent set by the Division Bench in C.S. Atwal, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The reasoning is that the High Court must follow its own prior decisions unless they are overruled by a higher court. The fact that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court in the C.S. Atwal case does not negate the binding nature of the High Court's own judgment. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was decided based on the admitted applicability of a prior judgment.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar (the appellant/revenue) against Jagjit Singh Chaudhary (the respondent/assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order or action which is not detailed, but the High Court is considering the appeal. The procedural history indicates that the revenue is appealing a decision. The counsel for the appellant admitted that a previous judgment by a Division Bench of the same High Court in ITA-200-2013, titled C.S. Atwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another, dated 22.07.2015, covers the matter against the revenue. The revenue has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in that case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in C.S. Atwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another (dated 22.07.2015) covers the present appeal against the revenue. (Question of law) The assessee's arguments are not recorded. The revenue's argument, as presented by its counsel, is that the judgment in C.S. Atwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another covers the matter against the revenue. The revenue also stated that a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court in the C.S. Atwal case. No other arguments or contentions were recorded for either party.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-227-2016 (O&M) Date of decision:- 06.09.2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar ...Appellant Versus Jagjit Singh Chaudhary ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant admits that the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in ITA-200-2013 titled as C.S. Atwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another dated 22.07.2015 covers the matter against the revenue/appellant. He, however, states that in C.S. Atwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another, the revenue has filed Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. We are bound by the judgement. 2. In view of the judgement in C.S. Atwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another, this appeal is dismissed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 06.09.2016 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Amodh Sharma 2016.09.07 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →