PCIT ROHTAK V. M/S PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT LTD

ITA/72/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak against Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'F'. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 concerning the denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main contention was whether the ITAT had erred in its factual findings regarding the submission of Form 10CCB by the assessee. The High Court, after reviewing the submissions and the ITAT's adherence to its previous rulings on similar issues, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720182 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURI OPAL
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2010-11; Condonation of delay; Exemption application; Form 10CCB; Income Tax; ITAT
• Section: 260A; 80IA(4)

Judgement Text

"ITA-72-2024 (O&M) 105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak M/s Paliwal Overseas Pvt CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-9122-CII- Application for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing of appeal is allowed and accordingly delay is condoned. CM-9123-CII- Exemption application is allowed as prayed for. Main case 1. This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA No.2082/DEL/2018 whereby the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2010-11 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds taken therein factual finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during (O&M) Page 1 of 2 (THROUGH VC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak Vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2024 Application for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing of appeal is allowed and accordingly delay is condoned. -2024 Exemption application is allowed as prayed for. This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA No.2082/DEL/2018 whereby the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 11 was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a perversity in the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds taken therein. It is stated that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly given a factual finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during (THROUGH VC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-72-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.08.2024 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Application for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing of appeal is allowed and accordingly delay is condoned. Exemption application is allowed as prayed for. This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA No.2082/DEL/2018 whereby the Revenue’s appeal for the AY submits that there is a perversity in the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds . It is stated that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly given a factual finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during (O&M) .2024 Appellant . . . Respondent Application for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing of This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA No.2082/DEL/2018 whereby the Revenue’s appeal for the AY submits that there is a perversity in the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds . It is stated that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly given a factual finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-72-2024 (O&M) his original assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the assessment records. 3. We find that the ITAT considered the grounds No.1 to 6 together and also examined the effect relating to deletion of addition of Rs.6,22,80,152/ 80IA(4) of the Act. The ITAT followed its order for the AY 2012 where also the same issue was examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on factual grounds that there were m can hire two distinct units from the same owner of the property claim had been allowed from AY 2006 been disputed. taken the same vi 4. Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find any substantial question of law required to be examined by this Court. 5. Appeal is 6. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. August 02, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether (O&M) Page 2 of 2 ginal assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the assessment records. We find that the ITAT considered the grounds No.1 to 6 together and also examined the effect relating to deletion of addition of Rs.6,22,80,152/- on account of denial of 80IA(4) of the Act. The ITAT followed its order for the AY 2012 where also the same issue was examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on factual grounds that there were more than five units and can hire two distinct units from the same owner of the property claim had been allowed from AY 2006 been disputed. Therefore for AY 2010 taken the same view and confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find any substantial question of law required to be examined by this Court. Appeal is dismissed having no merits. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No ginal assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the We find that the ITAT considered the grounds No.1 to 6 together and also examined the effect relating to deletion of addition of on account of denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The ITAT followed its order for the AY 2012-13 where also the same issue was examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on ore than five units and a single tenant can hire two distinct units from the same owner of the property. The claim had been allowed from AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 which had not Therefore for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the ITAT has ew and confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find any substantial question of law required to be examined by this Court. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ginal assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the We find that the ITAT considered the grounds No.1 to 6 together and also examined the effect relating to deletion of addition of deduction under Section 13 where also the same issue was examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on a single tenant . The 10 which had not 13, the ITAT has Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "