M/S THE AWAGAMAN CARGO CARRIERS PVT. LTD vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD.AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/350/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075061200626 October 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it was in view of its judgment delivered on the same day in ITA No.349 of 2006 concerning the same assessee. The judgment does not provide the specific reasoning or findings of the High Court on the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee, nor does it detail the ITAT's decision or the ratio decidendi. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. The Awagaman Cargo Carriers (P) Limited, Chandigarh, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order was in relation to ITA No.1122/Chandi/2004 for the assessment year 2001-02. The appeal to the High Court was filed proposing substantial questions of law. The High Court, in its judgment dated 26.10.2006, referred to its decision in ITA No.349 of 2006 concerning the same assessee and dismissed the present appeal.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the orders (Annexures P.1 and P.2) are legally sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. 3. Whether the order setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority is perverse, legally unsustainable, and based on mere presumptions, surmises, or a difference of opinion. 4. Whether the Assessing Officer's order applying a 2% rate for Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on payments to a sub-contractor is legally sustainable. The assessee contended that the ITAT's order was perverse and based on mere presumptions and surmises. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.350 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.350 of 2006

Date of decision:26.10.2006 M/s. The Awagaman Cargo Carriers (P) Limited, Chandigarh

....Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Bassi Building Sector 17, Chandigarh and another. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M.R.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. JUDGMENT: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No.1122/Chandi/2004, for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the orders (Annexure P.1 and (Annexure P.2) are legally sustainable? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the file of the respondent No.2 for re-examination? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority is perverse and accordingly is legally sustainable, the same being based on mere presumptions and surmises and mere difference of opinion which cannot form the basis of adjudication? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer applying rate of 2% for the purpose of deduction of tax at source being payment to the sub contractor is legally sustainable?”

ITA No.350 of 2006 2 In view of our judgment delivered today in ITA No.349 of 2006 in the case of the assessee, this appeal is also dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge October 26, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →