THE COMNER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI vs. SHRI NEERAJ RAWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/54/2001HC TelanganaHBHC01019554200121 November 2013Author: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an identical question of law had been raised and decided in ITTA No. 75 of 2000 before a Division Bench of the same Court. In that prior case, the Division Bench had answered the question affirmatively in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue through a judgment dated 01.12.2011. Consequently, in the present appeal, the High Court followed the precedent set in ITTA No. 75 of 2000, answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with this finding. No specific reasoning from the prior judgment is provided, nor is the amount in dispute mentioned. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

This Income Tax Tribunal Appeal (ITTA) No. 54 of 2001 was filed by the Revenue against an order dated 12.03.1999 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad (ITAT). The ITAT had canceled an intimation issued under Section 143(1)(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Act. The procedural history leading to the ITAT's order is not detailed in the provided judgment, beyond the fact that the ITAT canceled the Section 143(1)(A) intimation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in canceling the intimation under Section 143(1)(A) on the ground that the Assessing Officer cannot process the return under Section 143(1)(A) after issue of a notice under Section 143(2)? (Question of law turning on Sections 143(1)(A) and 143(2)). The Revenue argued that the ITAT was incorrect in canceling the intimation. The Assessee argued that the Assessing Officer cannot proceed under Section 143(1)(A) once a notice under Section 143(2) has been issued. The judgment does not explicitly state the arguments made by each side, but the question framed implies the core contention of the Revenue was that the ITAT's decision was wrong, and the core contention of the Assessee was that the ITAT's reasoning was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 143(1)(A),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.54 OF 2001

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

01.

This Income Tax Tribunal Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 12.03.1999 in I.T.A. No.533/H/95 on the file of the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad.

02.

The following substantial question of law was raised in this appeal for consideration. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in canceling the intimation under Section 143(1)(A) on the ground that the Assessing Officer cannot process the return under Section 143(1)(A) after issue of a notice under Section 143(2)?”

03.

In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we find that an identical question was also raised in I.T.T.A. No.75 of 2000 before a Division Bench of this Court. The said ITTA was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court through Judgment dated 01.12.2011 in I.T.T.A. No.75 of 2000 answering the question affirmatively in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

04.

In view of the said judgment in I.T.T.A. No.75 of 2000 of a Division Bench of this Court, the question raised in the present ITTA is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

05.

This ITTA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

06.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this Appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

07.

Let a copy of Judgment in I.T.T.A.No.75 of 2000 be tagged to the copy of this judgment. ___________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

_________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM 21.11.2013 bv

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 →