Chhattisgarh High Court Judgments — 2020

The High Court held that the appellant (Revenue) has not demonstrated the involvement of any 'substantial question of law' to interfere with the Tribunal's order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that a similar issue was pending consideration in Tax Case No. 10 of 2015 and connected cases, which was finalized by the High Court on 24-07-2019, with the verdict standing against the Revenue and the appeals being allowed. The Tribunal, in its order, had noted that the Ld. DR conceded to the facts being similar to previous years where subsidy was accepted as a 'Capital Receipt'. The Tribunal reasoned that if the assessment for 2014-15 was erroneous, the CIT (Appeals) could have invoked Section 263, which was not done, implying acceptance of the subsidy as capital in nature. Therefore, taxing it as 'Revenue Receipt' without new material was deemed arbitrary and liable for deletion. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and allowed the assessee's appeal. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court found that the ITAT had conducted a meticulous analysis of the facts, figures, legal provisions, and precedents. The Court noted that the ITAT had specifically considered subsequent events, including the Revenue's changed stand in respect of assessment for subsequent years, as detailed in paragraphs 20 and 21 of its order. Paragraph 20 referred to a decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., which held that surplus earned by the assessee company (set up by the Government) for activities carried out on behalf of the Government, and which belonged to the Government, was not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Paragraph 21 noted that the Assessee's submission regarding the Revenue accepting subsidy receipts in subsequent years (though under Section 143(1)) without action under Section 147 or 263 could not be controverted by the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the concession component received by the assessee, a government company implementing government projects as its agent, was not its income. The High Court agreed with the ITAT's reasoning and found no substantial question of law, dismissing the appeal.

The High Court held that the appeal was devoid of any merit and did not involve any substantial question of law. The Court found that the decision rendered by the Tribunal was clearly on questions of fact. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court declined to interfere with the ITAT's order and dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was that the ITAT's findings were based on factual appreciation, and no legal infirmity was identified that would warrant interference by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction concerning substantial questions of law. The specific grounds raised by the Revenue were not addressed on merits, as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of not involving a substantial question of law.

The High Court held that the appeal was devoid of any merit and did not involve any substantial question of law. The Court was of the view that the decision rendered by the Tribunal was clearly on a question of facts. Therefore, interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was declined. The appeal was dismissed. The Court did not decide the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue, as it found them to be factual in nature. No specific finding was given on the individual issues raised by the Revenue, as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground that no substantial question of law arose.

The High Court held that the submission made by the Revenue regarding the nature of the certificate, its adequacy, and other relevant aspects are primarily questions of fact, not substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not involve a substantial question of law. The Court found that the Apex Court's decision in Ace Multi Axes Systems Limited, relied upon by the Revenue, did not assist the Revenue in establishing that the matter constituted a substantial question of law. Since the ITAT's decision was based on facts, the High Court found it difficult to entertain the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that since a final assessment order has been passed on December 18, 2019, the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 has become infructuous and is of academic interest. The Court observed that the subsequent assessment order is appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of, leaving open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue their remedies against the assessment order. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original challenge to the Section 148 notice.

The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had become infructuous. This was because the Department had subsequently passed a final assessment order on December 18, 2019. The Court observed that the issue had become of academic interest. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging a pre-assessment notice becomes infructuous once a final assessment order is passed, and the assessee should pursue remedies available against the assessment order, such as filing an appeal. The Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. No specific relief was granted in the writ petition itself.

The High Court held that in view of the fact that a final assessment order had been passed on December 18, 2019, the matter had become of only academic interest. The Court observed that the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 had become infructuous. The Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order. No specific issue was left undecided, but the merits of the original challenge were not adjudicated.

The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had become infructuous. This was due to the subsequent passing of the final assessment order on December 18, 2019. The Court observed that the matter had become of academic interest. The Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies.

The High Court held that in view of the fact that a final assessment order had been passed on December 18, 2019, the matter had become of only academic interest. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of. The Court left open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire petition was rendered moot by the subsequent event.

The High Court held that in view of the fact that a final assessment order had been passed on December 18, 2019, the matter had become of only academic interest. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of. The Court left open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition itself was disposed of on the ground of becoming infructuous.

The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had become infructuous. This was due to the subsequent passing of the final assessment order on December 18, 2019. The Court observed that the matter had become of academic interest. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original challenge to the Section 148 notice or the assessment order itself. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies.

The High Court held that in view of the fact that a final assessment order had been passed on December 18, 2019, the matter had become of only academic interest. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to agitate the questions raised in the writ petition in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. The specific findings on the merits of the challenge to the Section 148 notice were not decided, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies.

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court acknowledged that the appellant had approached the court within the statutory time limit and found it appropriate to grant liberty to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers. This liberty was granted within a further period of six weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was for the Registry to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for the appellant. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court granted the Appellant's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the Appellant had approached the Court and filed the appeal within the statutory time limit. The Court found it appropriate to grant liberty to the Appellant to file fresh proceedings, corrected and modified to the requisite extent, within a further period of six weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's order and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for further steps.

The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court within the statutory time limit. Liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings, corrected and modified to the requisite extent, within a further period of six weeks from the date of the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for the appellant.

The High Court granted the Appellant's request to withdraw the appeal without prejudice to filing a fresh one. The Court noted that the Appellant had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Therefore, liberty was granted to the Appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers within six weeks from the date of the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court and filed the appeal within the statutory time limit. Therefore, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings, corrected and modified to the requisite extent, within a further period of six weeks from the date of the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and the substantive issues raised by the Revenue were not adjudicated.

The High Court granted the appellant's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for further steps. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file fresh proceedings, corrected and modified to the requisite extent, within a further period of six weeks from the date of the order.

The High Court granted the appellant's (revenue's) prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court acknowledged that the appellant had approached the Court within the statutory time limit and found it appropriate to grant liberty to file fresh proceedings with corrections and modifications within six weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The registry was directed to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for the revenue.

The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had become infructuous. This was because a final assessment order had been passed on December 18, 2019, during the pendency of the writ petition. The Court noted that this subsequent order is appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court opined that the matter had become of only academic interest. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original challenge to the Section 148 notice.

The High Court held that in view of the fact that a final assessment order has been passed on December 18, 2019, the matter has become of only academic interest. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of. The Court left open the questions raised by the petitioner to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, including an appeal against the assessment order. No specific finding was given on the merits of the challenge to the Section 148 notice itself, as the Court deemed it academic. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies.