NAMRITA SINGH vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14137/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067282201903 October 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed both writ petitions. The Court directed the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench to decide the appeals on merits. The reasoning appears to be based on the fact that the ITAT, Delhi had accepted the transfer applications, and the revenue had no objection to the appeals being heard on merits by the ITAT, Chandigarh. The Court found that the ITAT, Chandigarh's reluctance to hear the appeals, based on them being returned by a judicial order, was not a sufficient ground to prevent the appeals from being adjudicated. The operative direction is for the ITAT, Chandigarh to proceed with the hearing and decision of the appeals on their substantive merits. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These two writ petitions have been filed by two assessees, Namrita Singh and Alok Virk. Their income tax assessments were initially completed by the Assessing Officer in Delhi. Subsequently, both assessees relocated to Chandigarh. They filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT, Chandigarh initially directed them to approach the Tribunal in Delhi. After the appeals were returned, they were represented before the ITAT, Delhi. The assessees then filed applications before the ITAT, Delhi, seeking transfer of their cases to the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench due to their relocation. This request was accepted by the ITAT, Delhi. However, the ITAT, Chandigarh expressed reluctance to hear the appeals, citing that they were returned by a judicial order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench is legally obligated to hear the appeals of the petitioners, considering the transfer of cases from ITAT, Delhi. Assessee's Contention: The assessees argue that since their cases were transferred to the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench by the ITAT, Delhi, the Chandigarh Bench should proceed to hear the appeals on merits. They rely on the fact that the ITAT, Delhi accepted their applications for transfer based on their relocation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, stated that it has no objection on merits and a formal order is required to direct the ITAT, Chandigarh to decide the appeals. This implies the revenue does not oppose the hearing of the appeals by the ITAT, Chandigarh.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
CWP-14137-2019(O&M) 1 CWP-14139-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 245 Date of Decision :3.10. 2019 CWP-14137-2019(O&M) Namrita Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Income Tax Appelate Tribunal, Chanidgarh Bench, Chandigarh and Another ...... Respondents CWP-14139-2019 (O&M) Alok Virk ...... Petitioner Versus Income Tax Appelate Tribunal, Chanidgarh Bench, Chandigarh and Another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This common order shall dispose of abovesaid two writ petitions as the facts and law involved therein are common. These petitions have been filed by the two assessees. Brief facts of the cases are that assessments of the income of the assesses were done by the Assessing Officer at Delhi and thereafter, both the assessees KISHAN KUMAR 2019.10.04 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14137-2019(O&M) 2 CWP-14139-2019 (O&M) shifted to Chandigarh. They filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the ITAT'), Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, Chandigarh which directed them to approach the Tribunal at Delhi. Thereafter, the appeal was returned to them and the same was represented to ITAT, Delhi. Subsequently, they moved applications before ITAT, Delhi for trasferring their cases to ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in view of the fact that they had shifted to Chandigarh. This prayer was accepted by the ITAT, Delhi. However, ITAT, Chandigarh has expressed its reluctance to hear the appeals after going into the fact

that it was returned by a judicial order. Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for respondent No.2 has stated that on merits he has no objection since only formal order is required to direct the ITAT, Chandigarh to decide the appeals. In the circumstances, both the petitions are allowed and ITAT, Chandigarh Bench is directed to decide the appeals on merits. Since the main cases have been decided, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 3.10.2019 anuradha

Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No KISHAN KUMAR 2019.10.04 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →