C I T, LUDHIANA vs. ASHISH KUMAR, LUDHIANA

ITR/22/1996HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01034991199627 March 2012Author: MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

These three Income Tax References (ITR Nos. 17, 18, and 22 of 1996) were filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana, against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dated November 14, 1994. The assessment year in question is 1982-83. The Tribunal's orders concerned the cases of Smt. Ved Wati Munjal, Shri Suresh Chand Munjal, and Shri Ashish Kumar. The revenue has referred an identical question of law to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking the court's opinion on the Tribunal's findings.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred by the revenue had already been decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee in previous judgments of the Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhagat Singh (1998) 229 ITR 239, which held that assets received by an assessee on partition and accretions thereto did not cease to be HUF property, and the income therefrom was assessable in the hands of the HUF constituted by him. The revenue's plea that at least two male members are required to form a taxable HUF was rejected in Bhagat Singh's case. The Court also noted that similar views were expressed by the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shankar Lal Budhia (1987) 165 I.T.R. 380 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, M.P. 1 v. Krishan Kumar (1983) 143 I.T.R. 462. Following these precedents, the referred question was answered in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the references accordingly.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the share income attributable to 40% of the assessee’s right, title and interest of her share income in M/s Munjal Gases was to be excluded from the assessee’s total income? The revenue's contention, as presented by its counsel, was that the question of law had already been answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. Pawan Kant (ITR No. 7 of 1989, decided on 30.8.2004). The revenue did not present any further arguments, having conceded that the issue was covered by precedent. The assessee's arguments were not explicitly recorded, but their position was implicitly supported by the revenue's concession and the reliance on prior judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 27, 2012

1.

ITR No. 17 of 1996 (Assessment Year 1982-83) Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana …Applicant Versus Smt. Ved Wati Munjal …Respondent

2.

ITR No. 18 of 1996 (Assessment Year 1982-83) Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana …Applicant Versus Shri Suresh Chand Munjal …Respondent

3.

ITR No. 22 of 1996 (Assessment Year 1982-83) Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana …Applicant Versus Shri Ashish Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the applicant-revenue. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent-assessee(s).

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J.

1.

This order shall dispose of I.T.R. Nos. 17, 18 and 22 of 1996. These references have emerged from identical orders dated 14.11.1994, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA Nos. 1039/Chandi/1989; 1076/Chandi/1989; and 1042/Chandi/1989, in ITR Nos. 17, 18 and 22 of 1996 respect of Assessment Year 1982

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →