HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH vs. MS THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN

ITA/117/2018HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01025958201605 November 20183 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no substantial question of law to have been raised in the appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Senior Counsel for the Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to file it afresh after making suitable amendments within four weeks. The counsel for the respondent (M/s Tibetan Children Village Dal Lake, Dharamshala) had no objection. Consequently, the High Court permitted the appeal to be withdrawn, reserving liberty to file it afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action within four weeks. It was clarified that if the appeal was preferred within the stipulated period, the issue of limitation would not be a hindrance, and the appeal would be treated as filed within the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla against an order dated 6th February, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench ‘B’. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue also filed an application for condonation of delay of one year, three months, and twenty-one days in re-filing the appeal. The High Court noted that the Revenue had preferred a review of an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the question of jurisdiction. The High Court condoned the delay and disposed of the application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law to be decided in the present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assailing the order dated 6th February, 2015, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ Chandigarh. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its Senior Counsel, sought permission to withdraw the present appeal, reserving liberty to file it afresh with suitable amendments within a period of four weeks. The Revenue undertook to do so.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Decided on: 05.11.2018 __________________________________________________________________ Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

…..Applicant/appellant

Versus M/s Tibetan Children Village Dal Lake, Dharamshala (H.P. …..Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ______________________________________________________ For the applicant/appellant: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate.

For the respondent:

Mr. Vishal Mohan and Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent.

Sanjay Karol, Judge. (oral)

Supplementary affidavit stands filed. A perusal thereof supports the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay of one year, three months and twenty one days in re-filing the appeal.

Quite apparently, the revenue had preferred review of the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? question of jurisdiction. As such, application is allowed and delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

ITA No. 117 of 2018

From the perusal of the appeal so preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, assailing order dated 6th February, 2015, passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ Chandigarh (Annexure A-3), we find no substantial question of law to have been raised in the present appeal.

At this Stage, Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal, reserving liberty to file afresh by making suitable amendments, which the revenue undertakes to do so within a period of four weeks from today.

Mr. Vishal Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same.

As such, present appeal is permitted to be withdrawn, reserving liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action within a period of four weeks from today.

It stands clarified, if the appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period, the issue of limitation will not come in the way of the appellant and appeal shall be treated to have been filed within limitation.

The appeal stands dismissed, as withdrawn, reserving liberty as aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol)

Judge

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

Judge November 5, 2018 (raman/virender)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →