M/S SHRI KRISHAN EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28391/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01118952201925 November 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the counsel for respondent No.2 (Revenue) that the appellant had filed two appeals concerning the same grievance, one manually and one e-filed. The manual appeal had already been decided on 20.02.2019. The revenue stated that the e-filed appeal would also be decided on the same basis and that the present writ petition had been rendered infructuous. The counsel for the petitioner accepted this fact. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. No specific issues were left undecided as the matter was disposed of on the ground of being infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Shri Krishan Education Society, filed a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated by a letter dated 08.07.2019 from respondent No.1 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5) and a subsequent letter dated 23.07.2019 from respondent No.1. These letters pertained to an appeal arising from an assessment order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the ITO (Exemptions), Rohtak. The petitioner contended that the appeal had already been decided by respondent No.2 (CIT(A)) on 20.02.2019, and that respondent No.1 was proceeding without jurisdiction. The revenue (respondent No.2) stated that the appellant had filed two appeals concerning the same grievance: one manually on 31.03.2016 and another e-filed on 06.03.2018. Since the manual appeal was already decided, the e-filed appeal would also be decided on the same basis, rendering the writ petition infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 vide letters dated 08.07.2019 and 23.07.2019 are without jurisdiction, given that the appeal arising from the assessment order dated 02.03.2016 was already decided by respondent No.2 on 20.02.2019? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal had been decided and subsequent proceedings by respondent No.1 were without jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that two appeals were filed for the same grievance, one manual and one e-filed. Since the manual appeal was decided, the e-filed appeal would be decided on the same basis, rendering the writ petition infructuous. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by either party.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.28391 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision :25.11.2019 M/s Shri Krishan Education Society ...... Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 & ors. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ALKA SARIN *** Present :- Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing all proceedings initiated by the letter dated 08.07.2019 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure P-9) asking the petitioner to appear for hearing in the appeal emanating from the assessment order dated 02.03.2016 of ITO (Exemptions) Rohtak POOJA SHARMA 2019.11.29 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.28391 of 2019 (O&M) -2- (Annexure P-1) as the appeal emanating from the said assessment order has already been decided by respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-8) and issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure P-10) issued by respondent No.1 informing the petitioner that the appeal against the assessment order dated 02.03.2016 has been decided without jurisdiction by respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 (Revenue) states that actually the appellant had filed two appeals in respect of same grievance. One manual appeal was filed on 31.03.2016 and other e-filed on 06.03.2018. Since the manual appeal was already decided on 20.02.2019, the e-filed appeal will also be decided on the same basis and states that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be dismissed as such. Counsel for the petitioner has accepted this fact. Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Since the main case has been dismissed as infructuous, the pending Criminal Miscellaneous Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 25.11.2019

Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.11.29 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →