ITO WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FATEH HOMES PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's appeals for the same assessment years were previously allowed by quashing the assessment orders due to reopening under Section 148 being bad in law, nothing further survives for adjudication in the Revenue's appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed departmental appeals against the assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. These appeals were initially dismissed due to low tax effect but were later recalled for hearing on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether departmental appeals can survive for adjudication when the assessee's appeals for the same assessment years have been allowed by quashing the assessment orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order
Per A.D. Jain, Vice President:
These are Departmental appeals for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-2012. In these cases, the matter involved was recalled vide common order dated 28.08.2023 under M.A. Nos. 40 to 42/Chd/2020, whereby the order passed against the Department on account of low
22 to 24-Chd=2020– Fateh Home Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh 2 tax effect was recalled and the appeals were ordered to be heard on merits.
It is noted that present appeals filed by the Revenue which were dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide its common order dt. 04.02.2020 on account of low tax effect in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.7.2018, are connected to the Assessee’s appeals decided vide ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, order dated 16.6.2021, 51 & 52/Chd/2020 for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 wherein, the re-opening u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was held to be bad in law and the assessment orders were quashed by setting aside the impugned orders for all the above three assessment years and the appeals of the Assessee were allowed.
Thereafter, the Department filed M.As. Nos. 40 to 42/Chd/2020 for recalling the appeals, contending that the case of the Assessee falls under exception (e) of Para 10 of the Circular No. 3 of 2018 amended on 20.8.2018 and the M.As. of the Department were allowed to be heard on merits for the above three assessment years and the matter was fixed for hearing on 6.6.2024. Hence, the same have come up for adjudication before us.
During the course of hearing, the ld. DR reiterated that though the tax effect in these cases is below the limit prescribed by Circular
22 to 24-Chd=2020– Fateh Home Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh 3 No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 of the CBDT read with Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the case falls in the exception provided under para 10(b) of the said Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11/07/2018.
Per contra, the ld. AR, relying on the Order of the Tribunal dated 16.6.2021, submitted that the connected appeals of the Assessee for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 were decided by the Tribunal holding the re-opening u/s 148 of the I.T. Act to be bad in law, and the assessment orders were quashed.
We have heard rival contentions and have perused the material available on the record. We find that the Tribunal decided the Assessee’s appeals vide order dated 16.6.2021,in 51 & 52/Chd/2020, for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 by holding the re-opening u/s 148 of the I.T. Act to be bad in law. The assessment orders were quashed for the aforesaid three assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, and the appeals of the Assessee were allowed. We find that since all the three assessments have been quashed, nothing further survives for adjudication. Therefore, the Departmental appeals for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 also, likewise, do not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the Departmental appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
22 to 24-Chd=2020– Fateh Home Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh 4
In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on 07.06.2024.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026