JAGMOHAN GURBAKSHISH SINGH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/6/2018HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01017457201612 March 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the 13-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient. The Court then addressed the main issue by accepting the appellant's submission. The Tribunal held that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the High Court's prior judgment in M/s Stovekraft India Vs. Commissioner Income Tax (ITA No. 20 of 2015), decided on November 28, 2017. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with a specific direction that the findings and all directions issued by the Court in the M/s Stovekraft India judgment shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire appeal was decided based on the precedent.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by Sh. Jagmohan Gurbakshish Singh (the appellant) against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (the respondent). The appeal was filed with a delay of 13 days, which the High Court condoned after finding the explanation sufficient. The appellant's counsel stated that the issue in this appeal is squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India Vs. Commissioner Income Tax and other connected matters, decided on November 28, 2017. The appellant requested that the present appeal be disposed of with the direction that the findings in the M/s Stovekraft India judgment apply mutatis mutandis to this case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the findings of this Court in M/s Stovekraft India Vs. Commissioner Income Tax (ITA No. 20 of 2015) should apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal? (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issue in the present appeal is identical to the issue decided in M/s Stovekraft India (supra) and therefore, the appeal should be disposed of by applying the findings of that judgment. The assessee relied on the judgment in M/s Stovekraft India. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the issue on merits. However, the revenue was represented by counsel, and the appeal was disposed of by applying the previous judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

ITA No.: 06 of 2018

Date of Decision: 12.03.2018 ______________________________________________________________________ Sh. Jagmohan Gurbakshish Singh

…..Appellant.

Vs.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

…..Respondent.

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner:

M/s. Sushant Keprate and Aditya Sood,

Advocates, vice Mr. Vishal Mohan,

Advocate.

For the respondent:

Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate.

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral):

OMP(M) No. 05 of 2018

Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, 13 days’ delay in filing the appeal, which in our considered view has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Appeal be registered. Application stands disposed of.

ITA No. 06 of 2018 2.

It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled as M/s Stovekraft India Vs. Commissioner Income Tax and other connected matters, decided on

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2 28th November, 2017 and prayed that this appeal be disposed of with the direction that the findings so returned by this Court in the judgment rendered in M/s Stovekraft India (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal also. 3.

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of, with the direction that the findings returned by this Court in M/s Stovekraft India (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal also and all directions so issued by this Court shall be construed as having been issued in this appeal also.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol)

Acting Chief Justice

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge March 12, 2018 (bhupender/guleria)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →