COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 JALANDHAR vs. SHAMSHER JANG BAHADUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/60/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01009811202011 September 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to set aside the assessment order due to the delay in its passing. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order beyond the prescribed one-year period, which was subsequently set aside by the ITAT. The ITAT also considered a similar issue regarding the interpretation of Section 245 under a Revised Settlement Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed beyond the statutory time limit is valid. Interpretation of Section 245 in the context of a settlement scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 245

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2023:PHHC:118939-DB

ITA-60-2020 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 236 ITA-60-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.09.2023

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 JALANDHAR ……Appellant

Versus

SHAMSHER JANG BAHADUR ……Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

****

Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing

Counsel for the appellant.

****

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in IT (SS) A No.04/Asr/2012 dated 04.09.2019 for the block period 01.04.1989 to 08.02.2000, whereby the order passed by the Assessing Officer has been set aside on the ground that the Assessing Officer was supposed to pass the assessment order, within a period of one year that was upto 31.03.2008 and the assessment order was passed on 31.03.2009 which was beyond the period prescribed by law and the assessment orders were set aside. 2.

Apart from this, another reason for allowing the appeal was that the similar issue of interpretation of Section 245 had come up for PARUL 2023.09.19 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:118939-DB

ITA-60-2020 (O&M)

consideration in the case of M/s United Traders Vs. The DCIT (IT (SS) No. 5/ASR/2012 and IT (SS) No. 5/ASR/2015 and the assessment order was quashed by referring to the Memorandum to Finance Act, 2007 under the Revised Settlement Scheme. 3.

This factual aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the revenue that the assessment order was passed beyond the period prescribed by the law. 4.

No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 5.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

September 11, 2023 Parul

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:-

Yes/No PARUL 2023.09.19 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →