The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S Satnam Oil Mills Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A.No.373 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 30, 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .......Appellant Versus M/s Satnam Oil Mills Ltd. .......Respondent and I.T.A No.374 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .......Appellant Versus M/s L.D.Solvex Pvt. Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. M. KUMARHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocatefor the respondent. Notes: 1) To be referred to the reporters or not? 2) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M. M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. ITA Nos.373 and374 of 1009 as both of them arise out of a common order. These appeals are preferred against the common order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred as “theTribunal”) in the corss-appeals ITA Nos.357 and 359/Chd/2008 in respectof Assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue has claimed that followingsubstantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “theAct”): “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITATwas right in law in setting aside the order u/s 263 dated17.3.2008 of the Commissioner of Income Tax by holding thatthe assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer wasneither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of theRevenue, ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had failedto apply his mind to the case in all perspectives.” At the outset, Mr.Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the assessee- respondent in both the appeals has prayed that the order of the Tribunalmay be set aside because the Commissioner, Income Tax while exercisingthe jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, had earlier set aside the orderof the Assessing Officer and had remanded back the matter to the AssessingOfficer. In that regard, reference has been made to the orders dated10.3.2008 and 17.3.2008 of the Commissioner, Income Tax. Mr.Jain hasfurther stated that on the basis of the aforesaid order, the Assessing Officerhas already revised his earlier order as per the directions issued by theCommissioner. Even, an appeal by both the appellants has been preferredbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissedhaving been rendered infructuous. It is in that back ground, it has beenprayed that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside with a direction to move appropriate application for revival of the appeal. Ms.Dhugga, learned counsel for the appellant states that shehas no objection to the aforesaid course being adopted as submitted by theassessee-respondent. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal dated31.12.2008 passed in both the appeals is set aside and liberty is granted tothe assessee-respondents to move an appropriate application before theCommissioner, Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A photo copy of the order be placed on the file of connected case. ( M. M. KUMAR ) JUDGE April 30, 2010SRM ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) JUDGE