THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST DHHOTI BARADARI PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/71/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117812201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court was informed that the revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgment. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgments were not elaborated upon in this order, but the principle applied is that a subsequent appeal would follow a binding precedent from a higher bench of the same court, unless distinguished. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the cited judgment.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, against M/s Patiala Improvement Trust. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action of the ITAT is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged a similar judgment before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases. The present appeal is disposed of based on prior judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in light of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly relies on the aforementioned High Court judgments, as the appeal is agreed to be covered in their favour based on these precedents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledges that the appeal is covered by the cited judgments but notes that they have challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court, where leave has been granted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-71-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

M/s Patiala Improvement Trust ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate,

for the appellant. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

It is agreed that this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). 2.

We are informed that the revenue has challenged the judgement before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted in those cases. 3.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 25.01.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Amodh Sharma 2018.02.09 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →