COMMR.INCOME TAX vs. GAGAN SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/33/2003HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01004937200316 November 2009Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. AHUJA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the first order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had become infructuous. This was because, subsequent to the order under challenge, fresh assessment proceedings were completed, and a subsequent order of the ITAT had attained finality, governing the assessment of the assessee. The Court reasoned that the assessment proceedings would now be governed by this subsequent ITAT order, making the present appeal redundant. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on the ground of being infructuous, with the operative direction that the assessee's assessment shall be governed by the subsequent order passed by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed to the High Court against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside an earlier order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which had, in turn, set aside the Assessing Officer's order and remanded the matter for fresh assessment. It was undisputed that a fresh assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the CIT(A)'s order. The present appeal challenges the first ITAT order, but subsequent proceedings and a subsequent ITAT order have since occurred and attained finality. The High Court noted that the assessment proceedings are now governed by this subsequent ITAT order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue against the first order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is maintainable, given that subsequent proceedings and a subsequent ITAT order have occurred and attained finality, rendering the first order infructuous. Assessee's contentions: The assessee did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the High Court's decision implies that the appeal was rendered infructuous due to subsequent events. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue filed the appeal challenging the ITAT's order which had set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal in light of subsequent events.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Income-tax Appeal No. 33 of 2003

Date of decision: 16.11.2009

Commissioner of Income-tax

Appellant.

Versus

Gagan Singh Katoch.

Respondent.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the appellant: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala and Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.

For the respondent:

Mr. M.M.Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Shri

Goverdhan Sharma, Advocate.

Per Deepak Gupta, J.(oral)

By means of this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The CIT (Appeals) had set-aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for framing fresh assessment. This order was challenged in appeal by the Assessee and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set-aside the order of the CIT (Appeals). It is not disputed before us that pursuant to the order of the CIT (Appeals) fresh assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter the matter was carried in appeal and these proceedings have now culminated in the subsequent order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. This order has attained finality.

2 Therefore, the first order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which is under challenge in this appeal has virtually become infructuous. The assessment proceedings shall be governed by the subsequent order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

The appeal in question is disposed of by holding that the proceedings have become infructuous and the assessment of the assessee shall be governed by the subsequent order passed by the ITAT.

( Deepak Gupta ), J.

16th November, 2009

( V.K.Ahuja ), J.

™

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →