AMARDEEP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8377/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01041540202201 September 2022Author: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in view of the conceded factual premise that the company's appeal against the assessment order and the director's appeal before the CIT Appeals are both pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the same assessment year, there was no basis for interference by the High Court in the present writ petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the controversy. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as withdrawn, without deciding the substantive issues.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amardeep, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The company, Redhu Farms Pvt. Ltd., had previously filed an appeal against the assessment order for the same assessment year, which was rejected and subsequently taken to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), where it is currently pending. Additionally, the Director of the assessee company had also filed an appeal before the CIT Appeals, which is also pending before the ITAT. Given these admitted facts, the High Court found no basis for interference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the assessee and its director have already preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the same assessment year and related orders. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner. The petition was disposed of based on admitted facts. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not present any specific arguments on the merits but relied on the procedural history of the case, highlighting the pendency of appeals before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 179

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8377-2022 (O&M) Date of decision:01.09.2022 Amardeep ... Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer & others ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA. Present:- Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel, for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6. ... TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. Instant petition is at the hands of Amardeep. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21.02.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. During the course of hearing today, it has gone uncontroverted that the company/assessee i.e. Redhu Farms Pvt. Ltd. had filed the appeal against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 for the same very assessment year (Annexure P-4) and the same was rejected. The matter thereafter had been carried over to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and is now pending there. Yet another fact that stands admitted is that even the Director of the Assessee/company has also filed an appeal under CIT appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is also pending. HARJEET KAUR 2022.09.05 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8377-2022 (O&M) -2- In view of such conceded factual premise, we are of the considered view that no basis for interference is made out in the instant petition. Without even adverting to the merits of the controversy, writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)

JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA)

JUDGE 01.09.2022 harjeet (v)Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No (vi) Whether reportable? Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2022.09.05 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 179

All 36 judgments and leading authorities on Section 179 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →