PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED

TCA/182/2024HC Madras06 September 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue had become infructuous. This was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by its subsequent order dated 03.11.2023, had recalled the impugned order dated 03.08.2022. The Court was provided with a copy of this subsequent order. Since the order under challenge was recalled, the appeals challenging it were rendered moot. Therefore, the High Court dismissed both appeals as infructuous. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, dated 03.08.2022. The respondent is M/s. Iljin Automotive Private Limited. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel informed the High Court that the ITAT had subsequently recalled its earlier order dated 03.08.2022 through another order dated 03.11.2023. A copy of this subsequent order was produced before the Court. Consequently, the challenge made in the appeals had become infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous in light of the subsequent order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recalling its earlier impugned order? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not explicitly argue any points as the appeals were dismissed on the ground of being infructuous due to a subsequent order of the Tribunal. The counsel for the respondent (assessee) was present when the matter was brought to the court's notice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, brought to the notice of the High Court that the ITAT had passed a subsequent order dated 03.11.2023, recalling the impugned order dated 03.08.2022. This fact rendered the appeals filed by the Revenue infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.182 & 183 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.09.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.182 & 183 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18982 of 2024 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant in Chennai. both the appeals Vs. M/s.Iljin Automotive Private Limited Plot No.B1 & B2, SIPCOT Industrial Park Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Kanchipuram - 602 105 PAN : AAACI 2641E

... Respondent in both the appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in ITA No.1834/CHNY/2017 and IT(TP) A.No.60/Chny/2018 dated 03.08.2022. For Appellant : Mr.R.Karthik For Respondent : Ms.Kamakshi for M/s.P.Sandeep Bagmar J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.) These two Tax Case Appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in ITA No.1834/CHNY/2017 and IT(TP) A.No.60/Chny/2018 dated 03.08.2022. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.182 & 183 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST 2. Today when the cases are taken up for admission, learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that by a subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 03.11.2023, the impugned order has been recalled and a copy of the order also has been produced before us. 3. In view of the same, the challenge made in these appeals has become infructuous. Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 06.09.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST T.C.A.Nos.182 and 183 of 2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →