COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR vs. DEEPAK MITTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/61/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095775201127 April 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) fairly stated that the matter is covered against the Revenue by an earlier order of this Court dated 15.12.2010 in I.T.A. No.681 of 2010 in CIT v. Sh. Deepak Mittal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine based on the precedent. The specific findings of the ITAT on the issues of manufacturing and the reliance on the earlier High Court order were not elaborated upon by the High Court in this judgment, as the appeal was disposed of based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2006-07. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dispute involved whether the assessee's Baddi (H.P.) Unit could be treated as a manufacturer, considering that critical machinery operations for chassis parts were conducted at another unit, M/s ITL, Hoshiarpur, using sophisticated machinery. The High Court was reviewing the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in law in dismissing the appeal of Revenue by relying on the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which is not based on the correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case? (Question of law) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in treating the assessee’s Baddi (H.P.) Unit as a manufacturer when the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has itself observed that all critical machinery operation of chassis parts i.e. Rear Cover, Differential housing and reduction unit were being done at M/s ITL, Hoshiarpur on precision sophisticated CNC and other special purpose machines? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's decision was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts by the High Court and questioned the ITAT's justification in treating the assessee's Baddi unit as a manufacturer given the outsourcing of critical operations to M/s ITL, Hoshiarpur. The Revenue relied on an earlier order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sh. Deepak Mittal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.61 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.4.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Deepak Mittal. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi , Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in ITA No.79(ASR)2010 for the assessment year 2006-07 claiming following substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in law in dismissing the appeal of Revenue by relying on the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which is not based on the correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case?

I.T.A. No.61 of 2011 (ii) Whether on the facts ad in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in treating the assessee’s Baddi (H.P.) Unit as a manufacturer when the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has itself observed that all critical machinery operation of chasis parts i.e. Rear Cover, Differential housing and reduction unit were being done at M/s ITL, Hoshiarpur on precision sophisticated CNC and other special purpose machines.” Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by earlier order of this Court dated 15.12.2010 in I.T.A. No.681 of 2010 in CIT v. Sh. Deepak Mittal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 27, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →