2013 (10) TMI 78 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue challenged the remand order passed by the ITAT - subsequent to remand order and during pendency of this appeal orders were passed against such remand order and revenue succeeded in the subsequent order before CIT(A) and ITAT - Held that - It is in this backdrop, when we perused the questions of law formulated by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2010, we find that the answers to those questions would be academic and not serve any useful purpose to the revenue. As a matter of fact, the revenue after remand has succeeded before both the Authorities below i.e., the 1st Appellate Authority and the Tribunal and the orders passed therein are subject matter in ITA No.199/2010. - appeal filed by revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of substantial questions of law admitted by the Court
2. Correctness of Tribunal's decision on auction sale proceeds as admitted tax liability
3. Exercise of jurisdiction by Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act
4. Infructuous nature of the appeals due to subsequent events

Interpretation of Substantial Questions of Law:
The Court admitted I.T.A.No.812/2008 based on substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision on the Appellate Commissioner's order and the treatment of auction sale proceeds as admitted tax liability. The questions of law were similar to those in I.T.A.No.811/2008, which had not been admitted at that point. The respondent-assessee argued that both appeals had become infructuous due to subsequent events.

Tribunal's Decision on Auction Sale Proceeds:
In I.T.A.No.812/2008, the appeal was against the Tribunal's order allowing a Misc. Petition related to an assessment order. The Assessing Officer had determined the assessee's income, and the 1st Appellate Authority rejected the appeal due to non-payment of admitted tax. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal as tax was not paid. However, the Tribunal later allowed a Misc. Petition regarding the same, leading to the appeal in question.

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Act:
The Tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Act was questioned concerning the treatment of auction sale proceeds as admitted tax liability. The Department had auctioned a property and recovered an amount exceeding the admitted tax, leading to legal proceedings regarding the payment of tax and subsequent appeals.

Infructuous Nature of the Appeals:
The subsequent events, including orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal on the merits of the case, rendered the appeals infructuous. The Court noted that the revenue had succeeded in the lower authorities after remand, and the pending appeal (I.T.A. No.199/2010) would address the contentions raised in the disposed appeals. Therefore, the Court disposed of the appeals as infructuous, keeping all contentions open for consideration in the pending appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved, the sequence of events leading to the appeals, and the Court's decision to dispose of the appeals as rendered infructuous due to subsequent developments in the case.