THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KOTLA HYDRO POWER PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/502/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119379201826 February 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal in terms of the CBDT circular. Subsequently, the revenue's counsel stated that the facts of the present case were covered against the revenue by the High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh (ITA No.322 of 2016). In light of this concession and the prior ruling, the High Court dismissed the present appeal in the same terms as ITA No.322 of 2016. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal is covered by a previous judgment of the same court, and the revenue concedes this fact, the appeal should be disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the revenue) against M/s Kotla Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee). The appeal was filed against an order or action of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (though the specific order is not detailed). The procedural history involves an application filed by the assessee for dismissal of the appeal in terms of a CBDT circular. The High Court allowed this application and took up the main case. The revenue's counsel stated that the facts of the present case are covered against the revenue by a previous decision of the High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh, ITA No.322 of 2016, decided on 28.08.2018. The High Court then dismissed the present petition in the same terms as the cited case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed in terms of the CBDT circular, as contended by the assessee. 2. Whether the facts of the present case are covered by the High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh (ITA No.322 of 2016), as stated by the revenue. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the appeal should be dismissed in terms of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). No specific circular was named in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue conceded that the facts of the present case are covered against them by the High Court's prior decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh, passed in ITA No.322 of 2016, decided on 28.08.2018. No other arguments were recorded for the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.502 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.02.2020 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ...... Appellant versus M/S Kotla Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present :- Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate for the respondent.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) CM-21905-CII-2019 This application has been filed for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant in terms of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Main case is taken up on board today itself. Main case Learned counsel for the appellant states that the facts of the present case are covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh, passed in ITA No.322 of 2016, decided on 28.08.2018. POOJA SHARMA 2020.02.27 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2- In the circumstances, the petition stands dismissed in the same terms as in ITA No.322 of 2016. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE 26.02.2020 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2020.02.27 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →