Dismissed

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxs Central Circle-2, Patna v. M/s Nirman Re-rolling Mills Pvt., Ltd.

Patna HC11 Mar 2016MA/667/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose because the Supreme Court had already decided that a block assessment requires a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, which was not issued in this case.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed.

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxs Central Circle-2, Patna Vs M/s… — Income Tax | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No.667 of 2014 =========================================================== Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Patna. .... .... Appellant Versus M/S Nirman Re- Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. 701, VII Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna. .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Rastogi, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA And

¶3

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 11-03-2016

¶4

The present appeal under Section 260 A of the Incometax Act, 1961 is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on 09^th of July, 2014 in respect of block period 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

¶5

The Revenue has claimed following substantial questions of law.

¶6

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT, Patna was correct in law by reversing the order of AO and upholding the order of the CIT (A).

¶7

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT, Patna was justified in relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 329 ITR 362 when the assessee has not filed his return on prescribed time as per IT Act.

¶8

Patna High Court MA No.667 of 2014 dt.11-03-2016

¶9

2/2

¶10

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT, Patna was correct in law by accepting the plea of the assessee based on Blue Moon judgment and not considered the fact that the return was filed beyond the statutory period and hence was non-est .

¶11

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration as it is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. Such finding was recorded after the Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to confirm whether notice under Section 143(2) was issued. In the absence of any notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the block assessment could not have been completed as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 .

¶12

Since the issue stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal thus stands dismissed.

¶13

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶14

Sunil/-

¶15

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶16

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxs Central Circle-2, Patna v. M/s Nirman Re-rolling Mills Pvt., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxs Central Circle-2, Patna v. M/s Nirman Re-rolling Mills Pvt., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahmooda Khatoon Vs Md. Shoaib

Kundan Kumar Vs Soni Devi

Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidhyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union, Muzaffarpur Vs Mr. a.k. Singh Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Indradip Rai

Customs Department Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Customs Department Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.