The High Court dismissed appeals filed by the revenue against ITAT orders as infructuous since the Assessing Officer had redecided the issues following a remand, rendering further tribunal appeals unnecessary. The revenue retains the right to appeal to the CIT(A).
Appeals dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to revenue to contest before CIT(A).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ITA No.726 of 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
ITA No.726 of 2008
Date of decision: 8.2.2011
Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad
-----Appellant
Vs.
Shree Lajja Ram, VPO Sukhrali, Gurgaon
----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr.Standing Counsel for the revenue. Ms. Jyoti, Advocate for the respondent.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J .
This order will dispose of ITA Nos.726 and 877 of 2008 as both the appeals involve common questions.
ITA No.726 of 2008 has been preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘F’ New Delhi in ITA No.604/DEL/2004 for the assessment year 1997-98 claiming following substantial questions of law:-
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in setting aside the quantum order with a direction to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh the correct status of the assessee as to whether HUF or individual, even when the land revenue records i.e. Jamabandi clearly indicate that agricultural land in question was owned by the assessee in his individual capacity and not owned by Sh.Lajja Ram (HUF) and where there is death of father intestate, property which devolves on legal heirs mentioned in Class I, devolves on them in their individual capacity and it will not be HUF property in their hands?
ITA No.726 of 2008
2
Learned counsel for the assessee points out that in pursuance of order of remand passed by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has decided the issue against the assessee against which appeal is pending before the CIT(A).
In view of above, these appeals are dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the revenue to contest the matter before the CIT(A) in accordance with law.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 8, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad
Shree Lajja Ram
Adarsh Kumar Goel
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
