SURJIT KAUR (HUF) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITR/5/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075407200625 November 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the questions of law on their merits. The judgment notes that on the last date of hearing, March 3, 2010, the assessee failed to file three copies of the printed paper-book. Despite this, no further steps were taken by the assessee. Consequently, since none appeared for the assessee to press the reference, the High Court returned the reference unanswered. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT on the three questions are not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the reference was not adjudicated. No operative directions were issued, and no issues were left undecided by the High Court, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference of questions of law to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The reference arises from the ITAT's order dated December 24, 1986, concerning ITA Nos. 433 & 487/ASR/1986 for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioner is Smt. Surjit Kaur (HUF), and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-Tax. The matter pertains to whether property left by Sh. Swaraj Singh could be considered self-acquired property bequeathed to his HUF, and the consistency of departmental treatment of the property as HUF property. The procedural history indicates that on March 3, 2010, the assessee failed to file the required paper-book, and no further steps were taken subsequently.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three questions of law referred by the ITAT to the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sh. Swaraj Singh could not leave his self-acquired property for his HUF by his will although such an HUF had no property prior to his death? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in ignoring the rule of consistency although no res judicata is strictly applicable to income-tax proceedings? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property left by Sh. Swaraj Singh did not belong to the HUF of his wife and children despite their conduct of treating the same as HUF property right from assessment year 1961-62 assessment and department accepting the position upto 1980-81 assessment? The assessee (petitioner) would have argued in favor of the property being treated as HUF property, relying on the conduct of the parties and the department's consistent acceptance. The revenue (respondent) would likely have argued against this, supporting the Tribunal's findings. No specific arguments or authorities were recorded for either side in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.11.2010 Smt. Surjit Kaur (HUF) ....Petitioner. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: None. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal arising out of its order dated 24.12.1986 in ITA Nos. 433 & 487/ASR/1986 for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83: “(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sh. Swaraj Singh could not leave his self acquired property for his HUF by his will although such an HUF had no property prior to his death? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in ignoring by the rule of consistency although no resjudicata is strictly applicable to income-tax proceedings?

-2- (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property left by Sh. Swaraj Singh did not belong to the HUF of his wife and children despite their conduct of treating the same as HUF property right from assessment year 1961-62 assessment and department accepting the position upto 1980-81 assessment?

2.

On the last date i.e. on 3.3.2010 it was noted that the assessee failed to file three copies of printed paper-book. Even thereafter, no further steps have been taken by the assessee.

3.

Since none appears for the assessee to press the reference, the reference is returned unanswered. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 25, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →