PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BAY NO. 17-19, SECTOR 17-A, CHANDIGARH-160017

PDF · subscribers
ITA/425/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117642201715 December 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI,MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue being raised in the present appeal had already been answered by a Division Bench of the same Court in ITA No. 359 of 2017, dated 14.11.2017. Furthermore, the Court noted that the judgment in ITA No. 359 of 2017 had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court through the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 24323 of 2018 on 08.11.2018. Consequently, in view of the prior binding decision and its affirmation by the Supreme Court, the present appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order concerning Haryana Financial Corporation (Assessee). The appeal was filed in the year 2017. The High Court was considering a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CM No. 27094-CII of 2018) in relation to the Income Tax Appeal (ITA No. 425 of 2017). The Revenue sought to challenge a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or assessment year is not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the issue raised in this appeal had been previously decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issue raised in the present appeal stands answered by the Division Bench of this Court in ITA No. 359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel argued that the issue in the present appeal has already been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in ITA No. 359 of 2017. They further submitted that this decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 24323 of 2018. Revenue's Contention: No specific argument was recorded for the Revenue in the provided text, other than their act of filing the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.27094-CII of 2018 in/& ITA No.425 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision :15.12.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ......Appellant Versus Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate for the applicant/respondent. KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

(Oral)

: It is stated that the issue being raised herein stands answered by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 14.11.2017, rendered in ITA No.359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.24323 of 2018, vide judgment and order dated 8.11.2018. In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed, in terms of the judgment and order dated 14.11.2017, rendered in ITA No.359 of 2017. (KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 15.12.2018

Manoj Bhutani

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2018.12.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →