M/S MONGA BROTHERS PVT LTD LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA

ITR/7071/1988HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01015846198811 December 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing. In the absence of any representation from the assessee, the High Court considered it inappropriate to delve into the merits of the questions of law that had been referred. Consequently, the High Court decided not to answer the questions of law. The operative direction was to return the references unanswered. No specific findings were made on the merits of the issues raised by the ITAT's order, nor was any principle established that could be cited as a ratio for future cases.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, passed a consolidated order on August 23, 1985, in ITA Nos. 249 & 250 of 1984 concerning assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The ITAT's order was challenged by M/s Monga Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) through Income Tax References (ITR) Nos. 70 & 71 of 1988 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The references were made by the ITAT itself for the opinion of the High Court on specific questions of law. The High Court noted that none appeared for the assessee when the case was called for hearing.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following questions of law: For Assessment Year 1979-80: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which held that there was no mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154 in the Income-tax Officer's order passed under Section 143(3)? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that lease income was assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not under the head 'Income from Business'? For Assessment Year 1980-81: 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that income from the lease of part of the factory building was assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'? Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions were recorded for the assessee as none appeared. The assessee was the petitioner in the High Court references. Revenue: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, appeared for the Revenue (respondent).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
I.T.R Nos.70 & 71 of 1988 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R Nos.70 & 71 of 1988 Date of decision: 11.12.2006 M/S Monga Brothers Pvt. Ltd.,Ludhiana ..Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate for the Revenue. ****

JUDGMENT Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh arising out of its consolidated order dated 23.8.1985 passed in I.T.A.Nos.249 & 250 of 1984, in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81:- Assessment year 1979-80:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wherein he had held that there was no mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 in the Income-tax Officer's order passed u/s 143 (3)? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 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 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →