VMT SPINNING CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/9/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105302201310 February 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions No. (ii) and (iii) of the present appeal (ITA No. 9 of 2013) would be substituted with question No. (vi) from ITA No. 216 of 2013. The court further held that the present appeal should be disposed of in the same terms as ITA No. 216 of 2013, as both parties were in agreement. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the revenue and the consensus between the parties. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the decision in ITA No. 216 of 2013. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire appeal was disposed of based on the agreed substitution and precedent.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No. 9 of 2013, was filed by VMT Spinning Co. Ltd., Ludhiana (the appellant) against the order dated 13.07.2012 passed in ITA No.682/Chd/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, and another. At the outset of the hearing, the appellant's senior advocate requested that questions No. (ii) and (iii) be substituted with question No. (vi) from a different appeal, ITA No. 216 of 2013, titled Vardhman Holdings Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1, Ludhiana and another. The revenue's counsel did not dispute this request. Both parties agreed that question No. (i) and the substituted questions had been decided in ITA No. 216 of 2013.

What were the issues?

1. Whether questions No. (ii) and (iii) of the present appeal should be substituted with question No. (vi) from ITA No. 216 of 2013, and if so, whether the present appeal should be disposed of in the same terms as ITA No. 216 of 2013. (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to procedural fairness and adherence to precedent). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that questions (ii) and (iii) should be substituted with question (vi) from ITA No. 216 of 2013 and that the appeal should be decided in the same manner as that case. The assessee relied on the principle that similar issues decided in a connected or precedent appeal should be applied to the current appeal. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel could not dispute the assessee's submission regarding the substitution of questions and the disposal of the appeal in terms of ITA No. 216 of 2013. The revenue did not present any opposing arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 9 of 2013 -1- 1034 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No. 9 of 2013 Date of Decision: 10.02.2020 VMT Spinning Co. Ltd., Ludhiana Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This is an appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.07.2012 passed in ITA No.682/Chd/2007 for assessment year 2003-04. [2] At the very outset, learned senior advocate states that questions No.(ii) and (iii) would have to be substituted with question No.(vi) of ITA No.216 of 2013 titled as Vardhman Holdings Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1, Ludhiana and another and the same be disposed of in same terms. [3] Learned counsel for the Revenue could not dispute the same. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.13 08:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

ITA No. 9 of 2013 -2- [4] Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that question No.(i) and substituted question instead of (ii) and (iii) (claimed) have been answered in ITA No.216 of 2013. [5] In the circumstances, the appeal stands disposed of in same terms as in ITA No.216 of 2013. [6] Since the appeal is disposed of, the pending application, if any, stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 10, 2020

pankaj baweja

1.

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.13 08:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

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 →