Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-central-1 - Appellant
Versus
Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. - Respondent
ITA 612 of 2023
Decided On : 07-11-2023
Income Tax - Assessment Year 2012-13 - The court found that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration regarding the order passed by the Tribunal, and ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2012-13. The appellant/revenue seeks to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration regarding the order passed by the Tribunal, and ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case. The appeal was closed, and the pending application was disposed of.
Issues: The issues raised in the appeal were related to the order passed by the Tribunal and the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the proposed questions of law were found to be covered against the appellant/revenue, the court decided that no purpose would be served in entertaining the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was closed since no substantial questions of law arise for consideration, and the pending application was disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
ITA 612/2023 & CM APPL. 57572/2023
1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
2. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"].
3. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent/assessee, says that the decision of this Court dated 02.08.2017 rendered in ITA No. 597/2017 titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs Indian Farmers & Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. concerning AY 2010-11 covers the issues raised in the instant appeal as well.
4. What is not in dispute is that via the said judgment, the coordinate bench concluded that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration regarding the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Tribunal.
5. We may note that Mr Mayank Nagi, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent/assessee, has brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1167.
5.1. It is submitted by Mr Nagi that via the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court dealt with a bunch of appeals including Civil Appeal No. 4647/2018, which was an appeal preferred against the aforementioned judgment of the coordinate bench.
5.2. Mr Nagi says that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee while dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that since the proposed questions of law even according to the appellant/revenue stand covered against them, no purpose would be served in entertaining the appeal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is closed since no substantial questions of law arise for consideration.
8. Consequently, the pending application shall stand disposed of.
9. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
The court's decision was influenced by the principle that no purpose would be served in entertaining the appeal when the proposed questions of law are already covered against the appellant/revenue.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an issue is covered by a judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of the court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, no substantial question ....
The principle of applying a previous decision on a common question of law to similar subsequent appeals.
The court's decision was influenced by the decision of a previous court order and the pending appeal in the Supreme Court.
The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
No substantial question of law arises when issue settled in prior judgments for same assessee and Revenue.
The court's decision was influenced by the absence of incriminating material in the mentioned Assessment Years and the coverage of the issue by the judgment of the coordinate bench of the Court and t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
