COMMR.INCOME TAX vs. GAGAN SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/37/2003HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01004929200316 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. This is because subsequent proceedings have culminated in a later order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which has attained finality. The assessment proceedings of the assessee will be governed by this subsequent, final order of the ITAT, rendering the present appeal challenging the earlier ITAT order moot. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of on the grounds of being infructuous, and the assessment shall be governed by the subsequent ITAT order. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the appeal itself was found to be procedurally obsolete.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed 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, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It is not disputed that a fresh assessment was indeed framed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the CIT(A)'s order. The present appeal challenges the first ITAT order. However, subsequent proceedings have culminated in a later ITAT order which has attained finality. Therefore, the ITAT order under challenge in this appeal has become infructuous.

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? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee regarding the maintainability of the appeal or the merits of the case. The focus is on the procedural development. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue has challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue beyond the fact that they are challenging the ITAT's order. The core issue revolves around the procedural status of the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Income-tax Appeal No. 37 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 →