SHRI VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY BATALA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAWAN MAQBOOL ROAD AMRITSAR AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3891/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093735201508 March 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The court noted that the assessment proceedings had progressed, with an order passed by the Assessing Officer, an appeal dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and a further appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the court ordered the writ petition to be disposed of as infructuous. The petitioner was explicitly granted the liberty to raise all legally permissible issues in the pending appeal before the Tribunal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original challenge to the Section 148 notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Vishwa Mitter Sekhri Charitable Society, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 26, 2014, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the pendency of this petition, assessment proceedings were completed, and the order passed by the Assessing Officer was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was pending. Considering these developments, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the prayer in the writ petition had become infructuous and requested its disposal as such, stating that the petitioner would pursue the appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to subsequent developments in the assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that the writ petition has become infructuous because the assessment proceedings have been completed, the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has been dismissed, and a further appeal is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3891 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.3.2017 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioner filed the present petition impugning notice dated 26.3.2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As no interim stay was granted, the proceedings were completed. The order was passed by the Assessing Officer was challenged by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was also dismissed. Now the matter is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in appeal filed by the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid development, which has taken place during the pendency of the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer made in the present petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such. The petitioner will pursue the appeal filed by it, which is pending before the Tribunal. Sharmila Devi 2017.03.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No. 3891 of 2015 -2- Ordered accordingly. Needless to add that the petitioner shall be entitled to raise all the issues to which it is entitled to in terms of the law in the pending appeal before the Tribunal. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge

8.3.

2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sharmila Devi 2017.03.15 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →