C.I.T. JDR. vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITR/35/1996HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035005199619 September 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the questions of law on merits. The Court noted that the Revenue had requested time to produce an order passed under Section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated February 28, 1985. Despite being granted two opportunities, the Revenue failed to produce this order. A letter from the Revenue confirmed that the order was not available in the relevant CIT offices. Consequently, in view of the non-production of the crucial order, the High Court returned the questions unanswered. No finding was reached on whether the ITAT was right in dismissing the departmental appeal or in holding the Section 263 order as infructuous. The operative direction was to return the questions unanswered.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar) has filed an Income Tax Reference application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking the opinion of the Court on two questions of law. These questions arise from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, dated February 8, 1995. The ITAT's order pertains to ITA Nos. 457 and 290/ASR/1995 concerning the assessment year 1975-76. The High Court had previously granted the Revenue time to produce an order passed under Section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated February 28, 1985. Despite multiple opportunities, this order has not been produced. A letter dated August 30, 2007, indicates that the order is not available in the offices of the CIT, Jalandhar-I or CIT, Jalandhar-II. A copy of this letter has been placed on record.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law, referred at the instance of the Revenue: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in dismissing the departmental appeal filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 17.1.1989 quashing the reassessment? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in law in holding that the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has become infructuous? Contentions: Revenue: The Revenue sought to produce an order passed under Section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated February 28, 1985, which was crucial for the appeal. They requested time to produce this order. Assessee: No specific contentions for the assessee are recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 146,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

No. Present: Mr. Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. , Advocate, for the respondents. *** (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 19, 2007 paramjit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:19.9.2007 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar --Appellant Vs. Sh. Krishan Kumar --Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal *** Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the revenue. *** M.M.Kumar, J. At the instance of the revenue, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar has referred two questions of law for the opinion of this Court which are stated to have arisen from its order dated 8.2.1995 passed in ITA No. 457 and 290/ASR/1995 pertaining to the assessment year 1975-76. The questions are as under:- 1.“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in dismissing the departmental appeal filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 17.1.1989 quashing the reassessment.” 2.''Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has become infructuous?” When the matter came up for consideration on 11.7.2007, -2- learned counsel for the revenue requested for some time to produce order dated 28.2.1985 passed under Section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite granting two opportunities, the order has not been produced. It has, however, been stated by referring to letter dated 30.8.2007 that the order dated 28.2.1985 is not available either in the office of the CIT, Jalandhar-I or CIT, Jalandhar-II. A copy of the letter has been taken on record as mark 'A'. In view of the above, the questions are returned unanswered. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 19, 2007 paramjit

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →