M/S EASTMAN INDUSTIRES V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/157/2002

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Eastman Industries appealing against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the Assessment Year (AY) 1992-93, which was based on a previous ITAT order for AY 1993-94. Initially, the appellant's claim for AY 1993-94 was allowed by the Assessing Officer during the pendency of an appeal, leading to the withdrawal of that appeal. The current appeal seeks a similar reconsideration for AY 1992-93, following the precedent set by the ITAT's earlier decision for AY 1993-94, which has now become infructuous due to the allowance of the claim. The counsel for the revenue did not object to this request.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748305 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL MUKHI; IQBAL ROSHAN
• Keywords: Appeal Withdrawal; Assessment Year; Income Tax; ITAT order

Judgement Text

" 204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Eastman Industries Commissioner of Income Tax CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE M Present: Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant 94, the assessee had preferred an appeal which was decided against the assessee and thereafter ITA appeal was withdrawn by the assessee as during the pendency of the appeal, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the appellant. 2. He submits that the present appeal is against the ITAT order with respect to AY: 19 based on its earlier order with respect to AY: 1993 order has become infructuous on account of allowing the claim by the Assessing Officer for the AY: 1993 be directed to take a fresh decision relating to AY: 1992 3. Counsel for the revenue does not object the same. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA Date of Decision: 11.11.2024 M/s Eastman Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant 94, the assessee had preferred an appeal which was decided against the assessee and thereafter ITA-156-2002, was filed before this Court. The said appeal was withdrawn by the assessee as during the pendency of the appeal, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the appellant. He submits that the present appeal is against the ITAT order with respect to AY: 1992-93. The ITAT had passed the impugned order based on its earlier order with respect to AY: 1993 order has become infructuous on account of allowing the claim by the Assessing Officer for the AY: 1993-94. He prays that the Assessing be directed to take a fresh decision relating to AY: 1992 Counsel for the revenue does not object the same. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-157-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2024 …Appellant …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the appellant. Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for the AY: 1993- 94, the assessee had preferred an appeal which was decided against the filed before this Court. The said appeal was withdrawn by the assessee as during the pendency of the appeal, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the appellant. He submits that the present appeal is against the ITAT order 93. The ITAT had passed the impugned order based on its earlier order with respect to AY: 1993-94 as of now the said order has become infructuous on account of allowing the claim by the 94. He prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to take a fresh decision relating to AY: 1992-93 also. Counsel for the revenue does not object the same. - 94, the assessee had preferred an appeal which was decided against the filed before this Court. The said appeal was withdrawn by the assessee as during the pendency of the appeal, He submits that the present appeal is against the ITAT order 93. The ITAT had passed the impugned order 94 as of now the said order has become infructuous on account of allowing the claim by the Officer RAJESH KUMAR 2024.11.13 16:49 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ITA-157-2002 (O&M) [2] 4. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to consider and pass orders in the light of his earlier order passed in relation to AY: 1993-94 in the present case too. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 5. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 11.11.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2024.11.13 16:49 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. "