THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PURE DRINKS

PDF · subscribers

ITA/64/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042109200110 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal (ITA). The Court noted that the Registry had repeatedly informed the parties to take steps for the reconstruction of the file. However, no such steps were taken by either party. The Court further observed that the file was completely burnt in a fire incident and was not available in the Registry. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court also directed that all pending applications would stand disposed of accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal cannot be prosecuted if the necessary records are destroyed and no efforts are made by the parties to reconstruct them, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against M/s Pure Drinks (Assessee). The appeal pertains to Assessment Year(s) not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is not explicitly stated, but it is an Income Tax Appeal (ITA) filed by the Revenue. The procedural history indicates that the Registry had repeatedly informed the parties to take steps for reconstruction of the file. However, no steps were taken. The file itself is stated to have been fully burnt in a fire incident and is no longer available in the Registry. The amount in dispute is not mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appeal is maintainable in the absence of a reconstructed file due to a fire incident? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the appeal can proceed without the necessary records? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) The Revenue (appellant) did not present any arguments, as indicated by 'None' for the present parties and the observation that no steps were taken by the parties for reconstruction of the file. The Assessee (respondent) also did not present any arguments, as indicated by 'None' for the present parties.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

205-2 IN T THE COMM M/S PURE CORAM:

Present

SANJEEV

The p for re 2. The fi place 3. In vie 4. All pe

September Mohit goyal 1. Whe 2. Whe THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGA MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DRINKS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SA **** None. **** PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Ora

parties were informed by the Re construction of the file but no ste file is stated to have been fully bu in the Registry. ew thereof, the ITA is dismissed ending applications also stand di

(SA 10, 2024 ether speaking/reasoned? ether reportable?

JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH ITA-64-2001 (O&M Date of Decision: 10.09.20 X . . . . Appell . . . . Responde ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ANJAY VASHISTH al) gistry time and again to take ste eps have been taken. urnt in the fire incident which to for non-prosecution. isposed of accordingly. NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

Yes/No

M) 024 ant nts A eps ook A) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.10 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →