| Case ID |
1f55cea2-59ea-4a11-bf53-694020459238 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 439 OF 2007 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 25, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as infructuous, holding that no prejudice had been caused to the assessee. The Tribunal noted the previous orders, confirming that the Assessing Officer was directed to frame the assessment de novo. The appeal was based on substantial questions of law regarding the dismissal of the appeal without considering its merits and the limitations prescribed under section 153(2A). The Tribunal found no infirmity in its order, emphasizing that the legal issues did not arise from the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. |
| Summary |
In the case of Pusham Bansal v. Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Ludhiana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed issues arising under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning unexplained income and investment in Fixed Deposits Receipts (FDRs). The case highlighted the procedural aspects of appeals and the authority of the Tribunal in remanding cases for fresh assessments. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal provisions and the implications of dismissing appeals as infructuous, especially in the context of judicial consistency and the rights of the assessee. It serves as a critical reference for understanding the interplay between tax assessments and appellate procedures, making it relevant for taxpayers and legal practitioners alike. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
Satish Kumar Mittal,
Rakesh Kumar Garg
|
| Lawyers |
Pankaj Jain
|
| Petitioners |
Pusham Bansal
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Ludhiana
|
| Citations |
2009 SLD 988,
(2009) 316 ITR 256,
(2008) 173 TAXMAN 448
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
254,
260A
|