C.I.T.PATIALA vs. M/SKULDIP INDL.CORPON.CHD.

ITR/93/1990HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021650199004 April 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in this judgment, referred to its own decision in the assessee's own case, ITR No. 77 of 1990, decided on the same date. For the reasons recorded in that prior judgment, the High Court answered all six questions of law referred against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The court did not provide a separate detailed reasoning for each question in this specific judgment, but rather adopted the reasoning from the companion case. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly, implying that the Tribunal's findings, as reflected in the questions, were upheld. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the revenue) against M/s Kuldip Industrial Corporation, Chandigarh (the assessee). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was considering reference applications under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) to refer six questions of law for the Court's opinion. These questions arose from the Tribunal's earlier decision concerning the assessment year 1975-76. The core of the dispute revolved around the admission of evidence regarding the death of a partner, Smt. Darshna Devi, and the genuineness of the assessee firm.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide six questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the CIT (Appeals) could admit evidence of Smt. Darshna Devi's death under Section 250(4) of the IT Act, 1961, without allowing the Income Tax Officer an opportunity to rebut it, as required by Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Income Tax Officer was given a reasonable opportunity to examine/rebut the evidence of Smt. Darshna Devi's death certificate. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the CIT (Appeals)'s finding regarding the genuineness of the firm was not questioned before the Tribunal. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that Smt. Darshna Devi could not be identified as Smt. Darshna Gupta of Ambala. 5. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that, in the absence of evidence, Smt. Darshna Devi, whose death certificate was relied upon, was the same person who was a partner of the assessee firm for assessment year 1975-76. 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a genuine firm existed for assessment year 1975-76. The revenue contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in admitting the death certificate without proper procedure. The assessee's arguments are not explicitly detailed but are implied by the questions framed and the court's eventual decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 250(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR 93-1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITR No. 93 of 1990 Date of decision 4.4.2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .. Applicant Versus M/s Kuldip Industrial Corporation, Chandigarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL PRESENT: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the revenue. M.M.Kumar, J. This Court while deciding ITC Nos. 88 and 89 of 1986 on 26.9.1988 ( CIT Patiala v. M/s Kuldip Industrial Corporation Chandigarh) had issued directions under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') revenue to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the CIT (Appeals) could under Section 250(4) of the IT Act,1961 admit evidence of the death of Smt. Darshna Devi without giving any opportunity to the Income tax Officer to rebut the same are required under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules, 1962;

ITR 93-1990 2 ii)Whether on the facts and in the

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 256(2)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →