The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hisar v. Shri Shiv Kumar
High Court
25 Nov 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hisar v. Shri Shiv Kumar
Date of order
25 Nov 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hisar v. Shri Shiv Kumar, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : I. T. A. No. 561 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 25, 2008.
The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hisar....AppellantVs.Shri Shiv Kumar....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present :Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocatefor the Revenue.
* * *
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) :
The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), proposing to raise followingsubstantial questions of law :-
“Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT isright in admitting and adjudicating the additionalground of appeal when the relevant issue was notraised by the assessee before the CIT (A) ?”
“Whether ITAT is right in adopting themercantile system of accounting at the appellatestage by making reliance on the order of the ApexCourt, even though the assessee has voluntarily
offered his income by adopting cash system ofaccounting during the assessment proceedings andthat was assessed as such ?”
Learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the sameissue has been gone into by this Court earlier in order dated 03.10.2008 inI. T. A. No. 87 of 2008, between the same parties and has been decidedagainst the Revenue.
In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE
November 25, 2008monika
( L. N. MITTAL )
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.