High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANCHKUL v. DEPUTY EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER (E - ITA-368-2005  RD-P&H 311 (22 December 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Income Tax Appeal No.368 of 2005
Date of decision:17.1.2006
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula ... Appellant.
Mr.Rajesh Bindal, Advocate.
Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (E&T), Yamuna Nagar ... Respondent
Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.K.Jain, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? D.K.Jain, C.J. (Oral)
This appeal, by the Revenue, under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act') is directed against a common order, dated 10.2.2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, `the Tribunal'), in I.T.A. Nos.156 to 159/ I.T.A.No.368 of 2005 
Chandi/2001, in respect of assessment year 1999-2000. According to the Revenue, the order of the Tribunal involves the following substantial question of law:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in holding that the accountable person was not liable to collect tax at source under Section 206-C on the amount of licence fee being paid by the licensee and the State Government?"
Since the issue, sought to be raised by the Revenue, is no more res integra, insofar as this Court is concerned, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. Suffice it to note that the issue before the Tribunal was whether income-tax was to be collected at source under Section 206-C of the Act by the Excise Department at the time of auction of liquor licences.
A similar issue came up for consideration of this Court in Naresh Kumar and Co. and others v. Union of India and others, (2000) 243 ITR 760 and it was held that the Excise Department, which auctions the licence, is not a seller and the holder of the licence is not a buyer within the meaning of Section 206-C of the Act and therefore, tax at source is not to be collected from a licensee on the licence fee.
In the light of the said decision, with which we are in respectful I.T.A.No.368 of 2005 
agreement, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law survives for our consideration.
Consequently, we decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed.
( D. K. Jain )
( Surya Kant )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.