Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board V. Commissioner of Income Tax-I and another

CWP/8315/2002

AI Insights

The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board filed a writ petition challenging an order for a special audit of its accounts under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana stayed the operation of the impugned order and later found that the issue had been previously settled in favor of the petitioner, recognizing it as a 'local authority' for tax purposes. Given the consistency in the application of this status in prior assessments and the absence of disputes in the relevant assessment years, the court deemed the writ petition infructuous and disposed of it without further adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797009 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH GARG
• Keywords: Assessment years; Income Tax; Local authority; Special Audit
• Section: 142(2A); 10(20); 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8315 of 2002 Date of decision:- 08.10.2009. Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board ...Petitioner. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for quashing of order dated 16.01.2002 whereby the petitioner has been directed to get the special audit of its accounts done under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 31.05.2002, the operation of the impugned order dated 16.01.2002 (P5) was stayed and eventually the petition was fixed for hearing to a Division Bench. Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner at the outset, has stated that after the admission of the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (M.M.Kumar, J.) was a member, had decided ITA No.513 of 2005 by holding that the question CWP No. 8315 of 2002 -2- 'whether this assessee, considered, as a local authority or not', would necessarily be a pure question of fact, which cannot be gone into in an appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Act. In that regard, reliance was placed on the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (ITA No.520 of 2006, decided on 23.02.2007). It was further held that the assessee-appellant had always been regarded as a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Act in respect of the preceding assessment years and the aforesaid decision had not been disputed by the revenue. Applying the principle of consistency of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1992) 193 ITR 321 wherein it was held that no special question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the Act would arise for determination. On the basis of the aforesaid legal position, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that the assessing authority had framed assessment by treating the assessee-appellant as a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Act and the assessment year in the present case involved is 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. After framing the assessment by the Assessing Officer, the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The order passed by the assessing authority in respect of assessment years 1999-2000, which are not disputed in the present case, was upheld. The Tribunal had upheld the order of the CIT (appeal), which had treated the assessee-appellant as a local authority within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the matter has attained finality. CWP No. 8315 of 2002 -3- In ITA No.15 and 16/CHANDI/2008 (Assessment years : 1998-99 & 1999- 2000) it appears that no appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, which is taken on record as Mark-A. In view of the above, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as no useful purpose will be served in adjudicating on the controversy as to whether special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Act would be necessary or not. The petition stand disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE October 08,2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE "