The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gurgaon v. Motorola India Private Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-1216-71]

Citation 2019-LL-1216-71
Appellant Name The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gurgaon
Respondent Name Motorola India Private Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/12/2019
Assessment Year 2003-04
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags question of law • remand order
Bot Summary: The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 24.08.2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I-1' New Delhi, in ITA No. 2941/DEL/2011 for the assessment year 2003-2004. This appeal has been filed against the order of the ITAT whereby objection to the order of the appellate authority has been challenged. Learned counsel has argued that Section 251 was amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and the specific power to remand back was consciously omitted by Parliament and therefore, the Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the CIT in remanding the issue back. Learned counsel has very fairly argued that before the Tribunal these specific grounds were never raised or argued and only the legality of the order of remand was urged. It transpires that the computation had been re-done after the remand order and as per that computation the assessee was entitled to certain allowances. Once the merits of those allowances have not been challenged before the Tribunal, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this question of law in the present case and dismiss this appeal with the observation that the issue regarding the computance of the Commissioner to remand back has not been examined in the case and the order of the Tribunal would also be deemed to be limited to the facts of the present case and can not be used as a precedent. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending Civil Misc.


IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-362-2019 (O&M) Date of decision :16.12.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Appellant versus M/s Motorola India Private Ltd. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI Present : Mr. Tajender Joshi, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vikram Bali, Junior Standing Counsel for appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), against order dated 24.08.2018, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I-1' New Delhi, in ITA No. 2941/DEL/2011 for assessment year 2003-2004. 2. This appeal has been filed against order of ITAT whereby objection to order of appellate authority (as per which matter was remitted back to A.O.) has been challenged. Learned counsel has argued that Section 251 was amended by Finance Act, 2001 and specific power to remand back was consciously omitted by Parliament and therefore, Tribunal erred in upholding order of CIT (Appeals) in remanding issue back. We find that four questions of law, which have been formulated deal with merits of deletions. However, learned counsel has very fairly argued that before Tribunal these specific grounds were never raised or argued and only legality of order of remand was urged. 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 11:47:30 ::: ITA-362-2019(O&M) -2- 3. It transpires that computation had been re-done after remand order and as per that computation assessee was entitled to certain allowances. Once merits of those allowances have not been challenged before Tribunal (thereby implying that in fact assessee was not disentitled thereto, on merits), we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this question of law in present case and dismiss this appeal with observation that issue regarding computance of Commissioner to remand back has not been examined in case and order of Tribunal would also be deemed to be limited to facts of present case and can not be used as precedent. 4. Since main case has been dismissed, pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (VIVEK PURI) 16.12.2019 JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No 2 of 2 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gurgaon v. Motorola India Private Ltd
Report Error