COMMR.INCOME TAX vs. GAGAN SINGH

PDF · subscribers

ITA/35/2003HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01004934200316 November 2009Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. AHUJA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. The reasoning was that the first order of the ITAT, which is under challenge, has been superseded by a subsequent order of the ITAT that has attained finality. The assessment proceedings for the assessee will be governed by this subsequent ITAT order. Therefore, the Court disposed of the appeal by declaring it infructuous. No specific finding on the merits of the first ITAT order was made. The operative direction was that the assessment of the assessee shall be governed by the subsequent order passed by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, as the appellant, challenged an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had previously set aside the Assessing Officer's (AO) order and remanded the matter for fresh assessment. The assessee, Gagan Singh Katoch, had appealed the CIT(A)'s order to the ITAT. It was not disputed that following the CIT(A)'s remand order, the AO had framed a fresh assessment. Subsequent proceedings culminated in a later ITAT order that had attained finality. The present appeal concerns the first 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 have led to a final order from the ITAT. The Revenue argued that the appeal should be decided on merits. The Respondent (Assessee) argued that the appeal had become infructuous due to subsequent events and the finality of the later ITAT order. The core issue is the procedural status 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. 35 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.

™

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →