CIT, PATIALA vs. N.K. DHIR (HUF)

PDF · subscribers
ITC/1/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084891200927 August 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the present petition filed by the CIT. The Court noted that a similar petition by the revenue for the assessment year 1984-85 had already been dismissed on 26.5.2006, based on a statement by the revenue's counsel that the issue was covered against them by the High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mrs. Manjula Sood. Since the revenue's petition for one of the assessment years (1984-85) had been dismissed on merits due to a concession, the High Court found no reason to direct the ITAT to refer the question of law in the present petition, which covered multiple assessment years including 1984-85. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Patiala, filed an appeal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 26.6.1990, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the CIT's petition under Section 256(1) for referring a question of law to the High Court. The assessment years involved were 1982-83 to 1984-85. The sole respondent, Shri N. K. Dhir, HUF, expired, and his legal representatives (LRs) were brought on record. Service on some LRs could not be effected due to incomplete addresses, and one respondent had died. The High Court noted that a similar petition by the revenue for assessment year 1984-85 (ITC No. 22 of 1991) had been dismissed on 26.5.2006.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in cancelling the CIT's order dated 26.3.1987 under Section 263, when an amendment to Section 263 was made effective from 1.10.1984. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's order dismissing the CIT's petition under Section 256(1) implies that the assessee likely argued that the question of law was not a valid reference or that the ITAT's decision to cancel the CIT's order under Section 263 was correct. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, had previously stated that the issue sought to be raised for assessment year 1984-85 was covered against the revenue by this Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mrs. Manjula Sood, (1997) 227 ITR 873. This statement led to the dismissal of a prior petition for that assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 256(2),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITC No. 1 of 2009 [ 1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income Tax Case No. 1 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ... Petitioner v. Shri N. K. Dhir, HUF, Ludhiana (deceased) through LRs ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

.. Rajesh Bindal J. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (for short, `CIT') is in appeal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act') against the order dated 26.6.1990, whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal') dismissed the petition under Section 256(1) of the Act for referring the following question of law, for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in cancelling the CIT's order dated 26.3.1987 under Section 263 when amendment to Section 263 was made w.e.f. 1.10.1984.” After the sole respondent in the petition expired, his LRs were brought on record on 4.3.2009. As per latest office report, service of respondents No. 1 and 3 could not be effected because of incomplete address. Respondent No. 2 is reported to have died. Respondent No. 4 was out of station, whereas respondent No. 5 is stated to be residing in Australia. Further a perusal of the order passed by this court on 6.5.2008 shows that counsel for the revenue stated that for the assessment year 1984-85, the petition filed by it bearing No. ITC 22 of 1991, was dismissed on 26.5.2006. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it was a composite order for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85. ITC

ITC No. 1 of 2009 [ 2] No. 22 of 1991 was dismissed on a statement of the counsel for the Revenue that the issue sought to be raised was covered against the Revenue by a judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mrs. Manjula Sood, (1997) 227 ITR

873.

Once the petition filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1984-85 has been dismissed, there is no reason for directing the Tribunal to refer the question of law in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge August 27, 2010 mk

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →