COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD. vs. M/S NAND LAL LABHU RAM

ITA/162/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072529200531 March 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 16.9.2004. The ITAT's order related to assessment year 1993-94 and upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee, M/s. Nand Lal Labhu Ram, had declared its status as a Partnership Firm Assessing Salary (PFAS). The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP) and made additions of Rs. 45,000/- (salary to partners), Rs. 1,01,000/- (interest to partners), and Rs. 3,23,669/- (interest on capital). The CIT(A) deleted these additions and allowed the assessee the status of PFAS. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s order.

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was rightly assessed as a partnership firm (PFAS). The Tribunal noted that it was not disputed that the assessee's status was initially taken as PFAS. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the assessee had filed a copy of the partnership deed duly signed by the partners. The Tribunal found that since the procedural provisions of the statute had been complied with, the assessee was entitled to the status of PFAS. The controversy regarding the filing of a certified copy of the partnership deed when there was no change in the constitution was deemed not relevant, as the assessee had complied with Section 184. The High Court found no perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal, and thus answered the substantial questions of law against the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in law in observing that the controversy regarding the filing of a certified copy of the partnership deed was not relevant, despite a change in the firm's constitution effective 1.4.1992 due to two new partners joining and three outgoing partners? 2. Whether the ITAT was right in law in allowing the assessee the status of a firm when it failed to furnish a copy of the partnership deed with the return of income following a change in the firm's constitution? 3. Whether the firm, having failed to comply with Section 184 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, should be assessed as an association of persons under Section 185 of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that there was a change in the constitution of the firm, and the assessee failed to comply with Section 184 by not furnishing a copy of the partnership deed, thus it should be assessed as an AOP under Section 185.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 143(1)(a),Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 40(b),Section 184,Section 185

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appeal No. 162 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Income Tax Appeal No. 162 of 2005 Date of decision: 31.3.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-II Chandigarh --- Appellant Versus M/s. Nand Lal Labhu Ram, Kharar --- Respondent *** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for the respondent. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The paper-book of this case is said to have been burnt in the fire incident that took place in the premises of this Court on the night of 30th January, 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant has made available two copies of paper-book to the Registry for reconstruction of the file. The said copies are taken on record. The paper-book of this appeal is treated as having been reconstructed.

Income Tax Appeal No. 162 of 2005 [2]

2.

This order will dispose of two appeals, i.e. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 162 and 163 of 2005 as identical questions are involved therein. The facts have been taken from Income Tax Appeal No. 162 of 20

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 148

All 34,599 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →