THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH vs. GURDASPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST GURDASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/43/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117647201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the Revenue had agreed to this position. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where a subsequent case with similar facts and legal issues is bound by a prior decision of a higher or coordinate bench. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, filed an appeal against the Gurdaspur Improvement Trust. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolves around a prior judgment of a Division Bench of the same High Court, to which the Chief Justice was a party. The Revenue acknowledged that this appeal was covered by that earlier judgment in favour of the assessee. The judgment also notes that the Revenue has challenged the earlier judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee is not recorded as having made any specific arguments, but the judgment implies their position is aligned with the favourable outcome in the cited precedents. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Revenue also informed the Court that they have challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-43-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

Gurdaspur Improvement Trust ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate,

for the appellant. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

It is agreed that this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). 2.

We are informed that the revenue has challenged the judgement before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted in those cases. 3.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 25.01.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Amodh Sharma 2018.02.09 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →