Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8315 of 2002Date of decision:- 08.10.2009. Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board ...Petitioner. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:-Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer forquashing of order dated 16.01.2002 whereby the petitioner has beendirected to get the special audit of its accounts done under Section 142(2A)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). When the matter cameup for consideration before this Court on 31.05.2002, the operation of theimpugned order dated 16.01.2002 (P5) was stayed and eventually thepetition was fixed for hearing to a Division Bench. Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner atthe outset, has stated that after the admission of the writ petition, aDivision Bench of this Court, of which one of us (M.M.Kumar, J.) was amember, had decided ITA No.513 of 2005 by holding that the question 'whether this assessee, considered, as a local authority or not', wouldnecessarily be a pure question of fact, which cannot be gone into in anappeal filed under Section 260-A of the Act. In that regard, reliance wasplaced on the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income-tax v. M/s Haryana State AgriculturalMarketing Board (ITA No.520 of 2006, decided on 23.02.2007). It wasfurther held that the assessee-appellant had always been regarded as a'local authority' within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Act in respectof the preceding assessment years and the aforesaid decision had not beendisputed by the revenue. Applying the principle of consistency of the lawlaid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Radhasoami Satsangv. Commissioner of Income-tax (1992) 193 ITR 321 wherein it was heldthat no special question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of theAct would arise for determination.On the basis of the aforesaid legal position, Mr. Garg, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, has statedthat the assessing authority hadframed assessment by treating the assessee-appellant as a 'local authority'within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Act and the assessment year inthe present case involved is 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. After framing theassessment by the Assessing Officer, the revenue went in appeal before theTribunal. The order passed by the assessing authority in respect ofassessment years 1999-2000, which are not disputed in the present case,was upheld. The Tribunal had upheld the order of the CIT (appeal), whichhad treated the assessee-appellant as a local authority within the meaningof Section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the matter has attained finality. In ITA No.15 and 16/CHANDI/2008 (Assessment years : 1998-99 & 1999-2000) it appears that no appeal has been preferred against the aforesaidorder of the Tribunal, which is taken on record as Mark-A. In view of theabove, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as no usefulpurpose will be served in adjudicating on the controversy as to whetherspecial audit under Section 142(2A) of the Act would be necessary or not. The petition stand disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE October 08,2009vj (JASWANT SINGH)JUDGE