The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Muzaffarpur. … v. M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bagaha
High Court
23 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Muzaffarpur. … v. M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bagaha
Date of order
23 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Muzaffarpur. … v. M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bagaha, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
07- 23.9.2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.390 of 2009
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Muzaffarpur. …..Appellant.
Versus
M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bagaha.
……Respondent.
-----------
Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. K.N. Jain,
learned counsel for the respondent. The Department of Income Tax has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and is directed against the order dated 6.2.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench in ITA
No.628/Pat/07, pertaining to assessment year 2003-04, whereby the order of the learned assessing officer and the learned Commissioner of Appeals have been set aside, and the matter has been remitted to the learned assessing officer for statistical purposes.
2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the present appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Law is well settled that superior courts normally desist from remitting a matter before the inferior authority mainly
S.K.Pathak/
for the reason that such an order sets at naught the entire effort made till then to resolve the dispute between the parties, unless it becomes imperative. Law is equally well settled that the superior court normally does not interfere with the order
of remand unless it is absolutely unwarranted in law. However, it appears to us that the learned Tribunal has passed a limited order of remand, namely, for statistical purpose
only.
3. In view of our judgment dated 23.09.2011, passed in M.A. No.630 of 2008, we modify the order of the learned Tribunal, and direct that it would be an open remand to the
learned assessing officer who shall examine all issues of law and facts arising in the matter before him which he shall dispose of in accordance with law and the said decision of this Court in M.A. No.630 of 2008.
4. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.K. Katriar, J.)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
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.