C.I.T.PATIALA vs. SMT.VIDYA DVEI AMLOH

PDF · subscribers
ITR/149/1989HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022520198901 February 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND,MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging the reference of a question of law by the Tribunal, ultimately refrained from answering it. The Court noted that the Tribunal had annulled the re-assessment order, relying on its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Jaiwanti Devi. Crucially, the revenue's counsel could not dispute the similarity of facts between the two cases and, more importantly, admitted that the revenue had accepted the Tribunal's order in Smt. Jaiwanti Devi's case and taken no further action. Applying the principle of consistency and the Supreme Court's ruling in Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2004) 266 ITR 99, which discourages a 'pick and choose' policy by the revenue, the High Court decided not to delve into the merits of the reference. The reference was returned unanswered.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) referred a question of law to the High Court concerning an assessment for the year 1970-71. Proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated against the assessee, Smt. Vidya Devi, leading to an assessment order under Section 144. This order was set aside by an appellate authority, directing the Assessing Officer to confront the assessee with material and supply reasons for initiating Section 148 proceedings, which were not provided. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which annulled the re-assessment order, relying on its prior decision in the case of Smt. Jaiwanti Devi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in annulling the assessment? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the Tribunal was correct in annulling the assessment. Although not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the Tribunal's decision to annul the assessment implies it found merit in the assessee's grounds, likely related to the non-supply of reasons for Section 148 proceedings and procedural irregularities. The Tribunal relied on its earlier order in Smt. Jaiwanti Devi's case. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala, challenged the Tribunal's order. However, the revenue's counsel could not dispute that the facts in Smt. Jaiwanti Devi's case were similar to the present case and that the revenue had accepted the Tribunal's order in that case without further proceedings. This suggests the revenue did not press its arguments vigorously, acknowledging the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.R.

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

Date of decision: 1.2.2007 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala ...Petitioner Versus Smt.Vidya Devi Amloh. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the Revenue. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short , ‘the Tribunal) has referred the following question of law which emerges its order dated 18.6.1982 in ITA No.775/Chandi/80 for the assessment year 1970-71:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in annulling the assessment?” For the view, which we are taking in the present case, it would not be necessary to narrate the fact in detail. It would be suffice to mention that proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) were initiated against the assessee and an assessment order was finally passed under Section 144 of the Act. In appeal the assessment order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction to confront the assessee with the relevant material. It was further observed that on a request of the assessee for supply of the reasons for initiating the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, the same were not supplied to the assessee. In further appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal, re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was annulled. While doing so, the Tribunal relied upon its earlier order passed in case of I.T.R.

-2- *** Smt. Jaiwanti Devi. It could not be disputed before us by learned counsel for the revenue that the facts in the case of Smt. Jaiwanti Devi were similar to the case in hand and he further could not dispute the finding recorded by the Tribunal, while dismissing the petition under Section 256(1) of the Act, that the order passed by the Tribunal in case of Smt. Jaiwanti Devi was accepted by the revenue and no further proceedings are taken in that regard. This being the admitted position, keeping in view the principle of consistency and not permitting the revenue to apply the policy of pick and choose as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2004) 266 ITR 99, we refrain to go into the questions raised and return the reference unanswered. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge February 01 ,2007 (M.M.Kumar) Pka Judge

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →