PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. INDIAN FARMER FERTILIZER CO-OPERATIVE LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/612/2023HC DelhiDLHC01002140202207 November 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal. The Court noted that the revenue's proposed questions of law were already covered against them by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA No. 597/2017 concerning AY 2010-11, which had concluded that no substantial questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order for that year. Furthermore, the assessee brought to the Court's attention the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1167), where the apex court had dismissed appeals filed by the revenue against similar High Court judgments. Given that the issues were covered and the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the assessee, the High Court found no purpose in entertaining the appeal. The appeal was accordingly closed.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 and challenges an order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appellant is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Central -1, and the respondent is Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. The revenue argues that a previous decision of the High Court in ITA No. 597/2017 concerning AY 2010-11, which held that no substantial questions of law arose, covers the present appeal. The assessee further points to a Supreme Court judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1167), which upheld decisions in favour of the assessee and dismissed revenue appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the appeal filed by the revenue against the Tribunal's order dated 25.03.2022 concerning AY 2012-13. Assessee's Contentions: - The issues in the present appeal are covered by the High Court's decision dated 02.08.2017 in ITA No. 597/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs Indian Farmers & Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd.) for AY 2010-11, wherein it was held that no substantial questions of law arose. - The Supreme Court, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1167), has ruled in favour of the assessee, dismissing revenue appeals against similar High Court judgments. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue seeks to assail the Tribunal's order dated 25.03.2022.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 612/2023

Page 1 of 3

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Decision delivered on: 07.11.2023

+ ITA 612/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – CENTRAL -1

..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

INDIAN FARMER FERTILIZER CO- OPERATIVE LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Mayank Nagi with Tarandeep

Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

ITA 612/2023 & CM APPL. 57572/2023

This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:08.12.2023 12:09:49 Signature Not Verified

ITA 612/2023

Page 2 of 3

behalf of respondent/assessee, says that the decision of this Court dated 02.08.2017 rendered in ITA No. 597/2017 titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs Indian Farmers & Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. concerning AY 2010-11 covers the issues raised in the instant appeal as well. 4. What is not in dispute is that via the said judgment, the coordinate bench concluded that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration regarding the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Tribunal. 5. We may note that Mr Mayank Nagi, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent/assessee, has brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1167. 5.1 It is submitted by Mr Nagi that via the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court dealt with a bunch of appeals including Civil Appeal No. 4647/2018, which was an appeal preferred against the aforementioned judgment of the coordinate bench. 5.2 Mr Nagi says that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee while dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue. 6 Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that since the proposed questions of law even according to the appellant/revenue stand covered against them, no purpose would be served in entertaining the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is closed since no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:08.12.2023 12:09:49 Signature Not Verified

ITA 612/2023

Page 3 of 3

Consequently, the pending application shall stand disposed of. 9. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

NOVEMBER 07, 2023/RY

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:08.12.2023 12:09:49 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →