C I T vs. M/S HIND SAMACHAR PRINTING PRESS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/397/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080384200812 August 2008Bench: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court found that the substantial question of law raised by the revenue did not arise in view of a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in CWP No.2715 of 2006, titled Hind Samachar Limited vs Union of India and others, decided on 11.3.2008. This prior judgment presumably dealt with the validity of returns under similar circumstances or provisions. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision without delving into the merits of the revenue's contention regarding the signature requirement under Section 140(cc). The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2000-01 and challenged the Tribunal's decision to consider the assessee's return as valid. The assessee is M/s. Hind Samachar Printing Press. The dispute arose from the validity of the return filed, which the revenue contended was not signed by the person required under Section 140(cc) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh heard the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to hold the return valid even though it was not signed by the person required under Section 140(cc) of the Income Tax Act? The revenue contended that the return was invalid because it was not signed by the prescribed authority under Section 140(cc). The revenue argued that this procedural defect rendered the return invalid. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding this issue, but it notes that the Tribunal had held the return valid. The Tribunal's decision was based on a prior Division Bench judgment of the same High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

ITA No. 397 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.8.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II, Jalandhar .....Appellant vs M/s. Hind Samachar Printing Press, Pucca Bagh, Hindsamachar Street, Jalandhar ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Hemant Gupta J. The revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, “the Tribunal”), in I.T.A. No.384(ASR)/2006 dated 7.9.2007 for the assessment year 2000-01, raising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to hold the return valid even though it was not signed by the person required u/s 140 (cc) of the Income Tax Act.?” The said question of law does not arise in view of the Division Bench judgment rendered in CWP No.2715 of 2006 titled as Hind Samachar Limited vs Union of India and others, decided on 11.3.2008. In view of the above said order, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 12.8.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs.

Judge

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →