COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA vs. SHIVINDER SINGH

ITR/1/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036863200311 May 2016Bench: THE TAXING OFFICER,MR. JUSTICE SATPAL2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the references as not pressed. The Revenue, citing CBDT Circulars, stated they did not wish to pursue the matter due to a low tax effect (less than ₹20 lacs). The Court granted the Revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the references if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal by the Revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue itself was left open for adjudication in an appropriate future case. Therefore, no finding was reached on the merits of whether the assessee had the option to substitute the cost of agricultural land as on 28.2.1979 for capital gains taxation.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala (Revenue) filed three references (ITR Nos. 1, 1-A, and 1-B of 2003) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. These references arose from orders in RA No. 75/Chandi/83, RA No. 76/Chandi/83, and RA No. 83/Chandi/83, all pertaining to ITA No. 196/Chandi/1982, ITA No. 195/Chandi/1982, and ITA No. 128/Chandi/1982 respectively. The assessment years involved were 1977-78. The core of the dispute concerned the taxation of capital gains arising from the sale of agricultural land.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in case Capital Gains arising from the sale of agricultural land are to be taxed, the assessee has the option to substitute its cost as on 28.2.1979, the date from which the agricultural lands, due to an amendment in law, became an asset? (Note: The judgment incorrectly states 28.2.79, but the intended date appears to be 28.2.70 based on context). The Revenue's contention was that they did not wish to press the references in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to revive the references if something survived therein. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Assessee's side.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No. 1 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 1 of 2003 (O&M), ITR No.1-A of 2003 (O&M) and ITR No.1-B of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala .......Appellant Versus Shri Shivinder Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This order will dispose of ITR Nos. 1, 1-A and 1-B of 2003 as common question of law and fact are involved in the same. These references have been filed in RA No. 75/Chandi/83 arising out of ITA No.196/Chandi/1982, for the assessment years 1977-78, RA No. 76/Chandi/83 arising out of ITA No. 195/Chandi/1982, for the assessment years 1977-78 and R.A. No. 83/Chandi/83, arising out of I.T.A. No.128/Chandi/1982, for the assessment years 1977-78, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in case Capital Gains arising from the sale of agricultural land are to be taxed, the assessee has the option to substitute its cost as on 28.2.1979, the date from which the agricultural lands, due to an amendment in law, became as asset? (28.2.79 should be 28.2.70). REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

ITR No. 1 of 2003 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present references as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the references in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the references by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.05.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →