CIT, HISAR vs. MOHAN LAL NAND LAL ETC.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/658/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084789200905 July 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal had become infructuous. This decision was based on the joint submission of the learned counsel for both the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee). They stated that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by its subsequent order dated 13.11.2009, had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. This restoration was for the specific purpose of re-determining the year of taxability, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF). Consequently, the High Court found no necessity to adjudicate the present appeal, as the underlying dispute was being re-examined at the Assessing Officer's level based on a higher judicial pronouncement. No operative directions were issued by the High Court, other than dismissing the appeal.

What were the facts?

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar, against the consolidated order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", New Delhi, dated 31.3.2009. The appeal pertained to assessment year 1992-93 and involved appeals filed by both the assessee (Mohan Lal, Nand Lal etc.) and the Department. The High Court was informed by learned counsel for the parties that subsequent to the Tribunal's order dated 31.3.2009, the Tribunal itself, by an order dated 13.11.2009, restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This restoration was for the purpose of deciding the year of taxability afresh, in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF).

What were the issues?

The High Court was not required to decide any substantive issues on merits. The primary procedural development that led to the disposal of the appeal was the subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 13.11.2009. The parties agreed that this subsequent order rendered the present appeal infructuous. Therefore, no specific questions of law or mixed law and fact were framed or argued before the High Court for decision. The judgment does not record any arguments presented by either the assessee or the revenue regarding the merits of the original dispute.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 658 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar ....Appellant. Versus Mohan Lal, Nand Lal etc. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the consolidated order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) dated 31.3.2009 passed in ITA No. 134/Del/2008 and C.O. No. 177/Del/2008 filed by the assessee and in ITA No. 218 filed by the Department for the assessment year 1992- 93. Learned counsel for the parties state that after passing of the impugned order dated 31.3.2009, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.11.2009 has restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the year of taxability afresh as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC).

ITA No. 658 of 2009 -2- In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →