THE AMAR SHAKTI COOP. vs. COMMISSIOER OF IT, BHATINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/3/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074998200621 August 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the application for condonation of delay was without merit and dismissed it. The court reasoned that an order passed in an appeal is independent of an order passed in a rectification application. Merely filing and awaiting the decision on a rectification application does not constitute sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing a substantive appeal. Furthermore, the court examined the appeal on its merits and found no substantial question of law arising. This conclusion was based on a previous decision by the same court in ITA No. 20 of 2006, which dealt with a similarly placed cooperative labour and construction society. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed on merits as well. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Amar Shakti Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The appeal was filed with a delay of 123 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay by arguing that they had filed a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was dismissed on May 13, 2005. They contended that the limitation period should be counted from the receipt of the order on the rectification application. The High Court also examined the appeal on its merits, noting a similar issue had been decided by the same court in another case, ITA No. 20 of 2006.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 123 days in filing the appeal before the High Court is liable to be condoned, considering the pendency and dismissal of a rectification application before the ITAT, turning on the interpretation of limitation periods for appeals under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay should be condoned because the limitation period should be calculated from the date of receipt of the order passed in their rectification application, which was filed after the ITAT's initial order. They relied on the principle that an order passed in an appeal is dependent on the order passed in a rectification application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the condonation of delay. However, the court's reasoning implies a rejection of the assessee's plea. Regarding the merits, the revenue would have likely supported the ITAT's order. The court referenced a previous decision in ITA No. 20 of 2006, suggesting the revenue's position in similar cases was upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A.No.3 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.263-CII of 2006 ITA NO. 3 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21.8.2006 The Amar Shakti Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Ltd., Abohar ....APPELLANT VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL PRESENT: Mr. R.L.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J.

C.M.No.263-CII of 2006 By filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant (hereinafter described as `the assessee') has prayed for condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the present appeal by taking the plea that after passing the order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, `the Tribunal') on 17.2.2005, the assessee preferred an application for rectification of the same under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act'), which was dismissed on 13.5.2005 and if the period for limitation is counted from the date of receipt of the order passed in the rectification application, the same is within limitation. An order passed in appeal is dependent on the order passed in the rectification application against which the assessee has independent right of appeal. Merely because the rectification application was filed and remained pending before the Tribunal, the same cannot be termed to be a good ground for condonation of delay. Accordingly, finding no merit, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

I.T.A.No.3 of 2006 [2] We have even examined the case on merits. Similar issue raised by other similarly placed Cooperative Labour and Construction Society came up for consideration before this Court in I.T.A.No.20 of 2006- The Bandi Cooperative Labour & Construction Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda, where the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by this Court on 16.5.2006. Accordingly, for the reasons stated therein, even on merits, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 21.8.2006 mk

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →