आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH
HEARING THROUGH : HYBRID MODE
ŵी आकाश दीप जैन, उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी िवŢम िसंह यादव, लेखा सद˟
BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
Miscellaneous Application No. 13/Chd/2022
In
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1112/Chd/2019
िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2015-16
The ITO
Ward 5(5), Chandigarh
बनाम
Smt. Rachna Arora,
H.No. 1846, Sector 34-D
Chandigarh
˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALJPA7492G
अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A
राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/06/2024
उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/07/2024
आदेश/Order
PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :
The present Misc. Application has been filed by the Revenue arising out of
order of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1112/Chd/2019 dt. 31/03/2021.
2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay in filing the present Misc.
Application by 235 days. In this regard, the Ld. DR has drawn our reference to
the condonation application filed by the Revenue and it was submitted that the
delay in filing the Misc. Application has happened on account of Covid
pandemic and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
wherein the period of limitation has been extended on account of COVID-19
pandemic and it was submitted that where the COVID period is excluded, the
application so filed by the Revenue is within the stipulated limitation period. The
Ld. AR is heard, who has not raised any objection to the explanation so
2
submitted by the Ld. DR. In view of the submissions made by both the parties,
the Misc. Application is admitted for necessary adjudication.
3. It was submitted by the ld DR that the Tribunal vide its order dt. 31/03/2021
has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A)
by relying on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court
in case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Shri Dinesh Verma in ITA No. 381/2014. It was
submitted that there is a subsequent decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in case of Kamal Kant Kamboj Vs. ITO [2017] 397 ITR 240 which has not
been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the claim of deduction of the
assessee under section 54 of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that there is
a mistake which is apparent from the record in terms of not following the
subsequent jurisdictional High Court decision in case of Kamal Kant Kamboj
(supra) and therefore the order so passed by the Bench may be recalled and
appeal be heard afresh on merits in light of the later decision.
4. In his submission, the Ld. AR submitted that firstly, the Tribunal has
considered the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in case of Dinesh Kumar
Verma (supra) and being the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court,
order so passed by the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous. It was further
submitted that even though the subsequent decision in case of Kamal Kant
Kamboj was not brought to the notice of the Bench which has resulted in the
same not been considered by the Bench, at the same time, it was submitted
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, the same
clearly aligned with the case of Dinesh Kumar Verma (supra) and are clearly
distinguishable as far as the subsequent decision in case of Kamal Kant
Kamboj(supra). It was further submitted that there is latest decision of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Jangpal Singh Tanwar in ITA No. 293
of 2022 (O&M) dated 09/08/2023 wherein the decision of the Coordinate Bench
in ITA No. 40/Chd/2021 dated 22/06/2022 has been affirmed by Hon’ble
3
jurisdictional High Court wherein the decision of Kamal Kant Kamboj has been
duly considered by the Tribunal and thereafter the same has been confirmed by
the Hon’ble High Court. It was accordingly submitted that there is no mistake
which is apparent from the record as far as non following the decision of the
Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as each case will turn on its own merits and as
far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the same are clearly pari-
materia as far as decision in case of Dinesh Kumar Verma (supra) which has
been duly followed by the Tribunal while deciding the matter. It was
accordingly submitted that there is no mistake which is apparent from the
record and the application so filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available
on record. No doubt, the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Punjab and
Haryana High Court is binding on this Tribunal and where there are more than
one decision, the latter decision of equal and higher strength of the Bench will
take the precedence and non-following of the same will lead to a mistake
apparent from record. At the same time, as righty submitted by the ld AR, the
legal proposition so laid down by the Hon’ble High Court has to be seen in the
context of material facts which has been brought to the notice and considered
by the Hon’ble High Court and with a slight variation in the facts of a particular
case, the final outcome of the decision can vary and consequent ratio
decidendi of the said decision.
6. In the instant case, all three decisions are of Division Bench of equal
strength of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Coordinate
Bench while deciding the matter has considered and analysed the matter in
light of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of
Dinesh Kumar Verma (supra) and as far as the subsequent decision of Hon’ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Kamal Kant Kamboj is concerned,
we agree with the contention of the ld AR that the facts are clearly
4
distinguishable and the facts of the present case continue to be aligned with
the case of Dinesh Kumar Verma (supra) and that there is a latest decision of
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Jangpal Singh Tanwar
(supra) wherein earlier two decisions have been considered and matter has
been decided in favour of the assessee. In view of the same, we find that there
is no mistake which has crept in the order so passed by the Coordinate Bench
and the misc. application so filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
7. In the result, the misc. application is hereby dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/07/2024 )
Sd/- Sd/-
आकाश दीप जैन िवŢम िसंह यादव
(AAKASH DEEP JAIN) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV)
उपाȯƗ / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AG
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant /
2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent
3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT
4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar