PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. M/S VISION PROMOTERS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.(THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/60/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01147927201816 January 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no interference was called for in the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Department had withdrawn ITA-80-2019 with liberty to raise the issue before the Tribunal. Since the present appeal was consequential to ITA-80-2019, and the underlying issue was to be pursued before the ITAT, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a consequential appeal will not be entertained when the primary appeal has been withdrawn with liberty to pursue the matter before the lower appellate authority. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This High Court appeal, ITA-60-2019, was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had upheld an order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 156 days, for which an application for condonation was allowed. The present appeal was considered consequential to another appeal, ITA-80-2019, which the Department had withdrawn with liberty to raise the issue before the ITAT. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal, condonation of delay, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, being consequential to ITA-80-2019 which was withdrawn by the Department with liberty to raise the issue before the Tribunal, warrants interference by this Court? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural disposition of related appeals). The Revenue (appellant) contended that the present appeal was consequential to ITA-80-2019. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee (respondent). The Revenue's contention implies that since the underlying issue in ITA-80-2019 was to be re-agitated before the ITAT, this appeal, which stems from the same, should not be decided on merits at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-60-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.01.2020 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON ....... APELLANT VERSUS M/S VISION PROMOTERS BUILDERS PVT LTD(THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ...... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present : Mr. Kunal Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) CM-1043-CII-2019 This is an application for condonation of delay of 156 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 156 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. ITA-60-2019 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of the Assessing Officer giving effect of the Central Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SHABHA 2020.01.31 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-60-2019 (O&M) -2- 2. In view of the fact that the Department has withdrawn ITA-80-2019 with liberty to raise the issue before the Tribunal, no interference is called for in the present appeal as the same is consequential. The appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE 16th January, 2020 shabha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHABHA 2020.01.31 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →