KULDIP SINGH NALWA(HUF)ASR. vs. C.I.T.(CENTRAL) LUD.

ITR/109/1989HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022486198911 January 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND,MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee is M/s Kuldip Singh Nalwa (HUF) and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana. The assessment year in question is 1975-76. The case involves an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, on May 5, 1987, in I.T.A. No. 695 of 1984. The High Court was asked to answer questions of law referred by the Tribunal. However, when the case was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the High Court did not proceed to decide the merits of the questions of law referred.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the questions of law on their merits. Since no one appeared for the assessee when the case was called for hearing, the Court deemed it inappropriate to delve into the substance of the referred questions. Consequently, the reference was returned unanswered. The operative direction was to return the reference unanswered, with no decision on the merits of the issues raised by the Tribunal. No specific finding was reached on whether Section 147(a) or 147(b) was attracted, nor was the footnote's status as information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer determined. The Court's decision was procedural, based on the absence of the assessee's representation.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law, framed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arising from its order dated May 5, 1987, concerning assessment year 1975-76. 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that when a revised return was filed omitting a footnote from the original return, and the revised return was filed solely to revise share income from a firm due to a revision in the firm's return, the omission meant the assessee had withdrawn what was disclosed in the first return, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances, the footnote in the original return constituted information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer, and if not, whether the notice under Section 147(a) was issued in consequence of information in the officer's possession, thus attracting the provisions of Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not present any arguments. The revenue was represented by counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147(a),Section 147(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.R.

N o.109 of 1989

-1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R.

N o.109 of 1989

Date of decision: 11.1.2006. M/S Kuldip Singh Nalwa(HUF), Amritsar ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax(Central), Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate for Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the revenue. **** RAJESH BINDAL,J. Following questions of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandgiarh arising out of its order dated 5.5.1987 passed in I.T.A.No.695 of 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76.. “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that once the revised return had been filed omitting any foot note which was given in the original return, the revised return which was filed merely to revise the share income from a firm as a result of revision of return in the case of the firm, had withdrawn that was disclosed in the first return an

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 147(a)

All 43 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →