THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS CHD vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA DR MELA RAM STREET BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/46/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117679201725 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, Improvement Trust Bathinda, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The Court noted that the revenue had challenged these prior judgments before the Supreme Court and that leave had been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgment. The specific reasoning of the cited judgments was not elaborated upon in this order, but the principle applied is that a consistent High Court precedent, even if under challenge in the Supreme Court, binds the High Court.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh against the Improvement Trust Bathinda. The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned in the judgment. The dispute concerns the taxability of the respondent assessee. The High Court was hearing the appeal against an order passed by an authority below. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged a similar judgment before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee, Improvement Trust Bathinda, is entitled to exemption under the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the facts and circumstances of the case? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) The assessee contended that the appeal is covered in its favour based on previous judgments of the High Court, specifically citing 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The revenue acknowledged that these judgments favour the assessee and stated that they have challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court, where leave has been granted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-46-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

Improvement Trust Bathinda ...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 →