COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PTL vs. KRISHNA COLD STORAGE RICE MILLS

ITR/355/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032431199530 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

This case concerns an Income Tax Reference (ITR) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the revenue) against Krishna Cold Storage Rice Mills, Rajpura (the assessee). The assessment year in question is 1983-84. The dispute arises from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) on March 15, 1993, in ITA No. 570/Chandi/88. The Tribunal's order was challenged by the revenue, leading to the present reference to the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the amendment to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from October 1, 1984, regarding the commencement of the period of limitation, was not applicable to the assessment order for the assessment year 1983-84. The Court referred to its own judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Ludhiana, dated November 2, 2006, which dealt with an identical question. In that judgment, the Court noted that the department itself had issued Circular No. 402 dated November 1, 1984, stating that the pre-amendment limitation period should be adhered to for orders passed prior to October 1, 1984, even if they were to be revised. Therefore, the question was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amendment made in section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.10.1984 regarding the commencement of the period of limitation was not applicable to the assessment order sought to be revised as the said order related to the assessment year 1983-84? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that an amendment to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from October 1, 1984, introduced a two-year limitation period from the end of the assessment year in which the assessment order was passed. They contended that an assessment order passed on June 26, 1984, would fall within this revised limitation period, as the two years would commence from March 31, 1985. The revenue relied on the fact that the assessment order was passed prior to the amendment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.355 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.355 of 1995 Date of decision:30.11.2006 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ....Petitioner versus Krishna Cold Storage Rice Mills, Rajpura ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') arising out of its order dated 15.3.1993 in ITA No.570/Chandi/88, for the assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amendment made in section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.10.1984 regarding the commencement of the period of limitation was not applicable to the assessment order sought to be revised as the said order related to the assessment year 1983-84?”

Learned counsel for the revenue states that identical question has been gone into by this Court in judgment dated 2.11.2006 in ITR Nos.39 and 4

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 263

All 13,474 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →