Ita/78/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Vinod Kakkar
High Court
11 May 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/78/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Vinod Kakkar
Date of order
11 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
1993-94
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/78/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Vinod Kakkar, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 309 (ASR)/2003, for the assessment year 1993-94,raising the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that theorder passed by the A.O. was beyond time limitationprescribed u/s 153 overlooking thereby the...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
ITA No. 78 of 2004 (O&M)
IN THERE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 78 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.05.2016
Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Ludhiana
....... Appellant
+#,&-&
Sh. Vinod Kakkar
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present:Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate|for the appellant.for the appellant.
Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate,for the respondent.
RAJESH BINDAL,J.
This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order dated15.09.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench,Amritsar, in ITA No. 309 (ASR)/2003, for the assessment year 1993-94,raising the following substantial question of law:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that theorder passed by the A.O. was beyond time limitationprescribed u/s 153 overlooking thereby the fact that theorder was passed within the period of 60 days reckonedfrom 30.03.2002, the date on which the order of theHon'ble High Court vacating the stay came to the noticeof A.O.?
ITA No. 78 of 2004 (O&M)
~).
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that inview oft circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as thetax effect involved 1s less than=a20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty begranted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in casesomething survives therein.
Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue asclaimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case,
(RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE
11.05.2016TEe M
(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue