Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1978 2014 SLD 1978 (2014) 367 ITR 281
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT APPEAL NO.266 OF 2013 (O & M), MARCH 18, 2014
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MS. ANITA CHAUDHRY, JJ
S.K. Mukhi for the Appellant. Yogesh Putney for the
Respondent.

Mukand Cold Storage

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.266 and 267 of 2013, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in both the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.266 of 2013. 2. ITA No.266 of 2013 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 1.6.2010, Annexure A.5 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh in ITA No.608/CHD/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "(I) Whether the ITAT was justified in disposing of the appeal vide order dated 1.6.2010, Annexure A.5 without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant firm and without allowing the appellant to argue its case and to refer to the paper book including written submissions and evidences filed before the authorities below which is against the principles of natural justice and that of right of hearing in view of trite law that 'no one should be condemned unheard?' (II) Whether the ITAT was justified in disposing of the Miscellaneous petition vide orders dated 16.4.2013, Annexure A.6 by dismissing it without appreciating the fact that during the initial hearing of the appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT has simply closed the hearing with the observation that from the facts it is apparent that the matter has been wrongly decided against the assessee firm and in view of judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court and that of Hon'ble M.P. High Court the capital introduced by the partners in the firm has to be added in the hands of the partners and not to that of the firm so that the ITAT should have recalled its initial order dated 1.6.2010? (III) Whether the ITAT was justified in disposing of the appeal vide orders dated 1.6.2010, Annexure A.5 by dismissing it without appreciating the fact and making the addition of the impugned amount in the hands of the firm wrongly in view of judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court and that of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka [2007] 208 CTR 459 (Punj. &…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492