Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Chandigarh v. M/S Punjab State Cooperative Federation Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 688 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 12.8.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ..........Appellant Versus M/s Punjab State Cooperative Federation of ..........RespondentHousing Building Societies Ltd., SCO 150-152,Sector 34-A, Chandigarh CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocatefor the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B dated 30.5.2008 passed inITA No. 700/Chandi/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04, proposing toraise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in sendingback the issue of claim of deduction back to the file ofthe Assessing Officer without appreciating merits of thecase and also that no facts have been made out beforethe Hon'ble Tribunal as to how the return filed on21.12.2005 (by way of written submission) was bonafidein terms of section 139(5) of the Act as the revisedreturn could not be filed in this case after 31.3.2005?The assessee filed original return and thereafter a revised I.T.A. No. 688 of 2008 return. The revised return was treated as being beyond one year from theend of the relevant assessment year and was thus invalid under Section139 (5). This view was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, withoutcommenting upon the validity of the orders of the Assessing Officer or theCIT(A), set aside the said orders and remanded the matter to theAssessing Officer. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal inexercise of its appellate powers, could set aside the impugned orders onlyafter recording a finding that such orders were in any way erroneous. 5.Learned counsel for the assessee is unable to show anyfinding which may have been recorded by the Tribunal that the orders ofthe Assessing Officer or CIT (A) were erroneous in any manner, much lessreasons for such a finding. 6.We are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is perverseand unsustainable in law and beyond its authority. The appeal, thus,involves substantial question of law, as to whether the Tribunal could haveset aside the orders of lower authorities without recording any findings orabout their correctness. The same question, thus, has to be answered infavour of the revenue. 7.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal isset aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision onmerits in accordance with law. The parties may appear before the Tribunalfor further proceedings on December 14, 2009. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 12, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No