COMMR.INCOME TAX vs. GAGAN SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/34/2003HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01004936200316 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 earlier order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has become infructuous. This is because, subsequent to the CIT(A)'s order and the first ITAT order, a fresh assessment was framed by the AO, and further proceedings culminated in a subsequent ITAT order which has attained finality. Therefore, the assessment of the assessee shall be governed by this subsequent, final order of the ITAT, rendering the present appeal on the earlier order academic. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as infructuous, and the assessment will be governed by the subsequent ITAT order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court challenging an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside an earlier order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), which had in turn set aside the Assessing Officer's (AO) order and remanded the matter for fresh assessment. It is not disputed that pursuant to the CIT(A)'s order, the AO framed a fresh assessment. Subsequent proceedings culminated in a later ITAT order which has attained finality. The present appeal challenges the earlier ITAT order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue against the earlier order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is maintainable when subsequent proceedings have led to a final order by the ITAT governing the assessment. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not explicitly argue any points as the appeal was disposed of on the ground of being infructuous. The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee's side regarding the merits of the earlier ITAT order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue is challenging the earlier order of the ITAT. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the merits of the earlier ITAT order, focusing instead on the procedural development.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Income-tax Appeal No. 34 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 →