C.IT vs. JAIN PACK WALL IND.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/20/1992HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021982199216 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the revenue's counsel fairly conceded that a connected matter, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. Quality Packs, ITR Nos. 34 to 41 of 1992, had been decided by the Court on November 14, 2006, and the question was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, in view of this concession and the prior decision, the High Court answered the referred question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The references were disposed of accordingly. The specific reasoning of the Tribunal in the prior order that the High Court is now following is not detailed in this judgment, nor are the specific arguments of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, passed a consolidated order on December 21, 1990, in ITA Nos. 706 to 712(ASR)/1989 concerning assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88. This order set aside the orders of the Income-tax authorities regarding the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and directed the Assessing Officer to follow the Tribunal's prior order in ITA Nos. 384 to 390(ASR)/1989 on the same issue. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar (the revenue), sought a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on this matter. The High Court heard the reference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances prevailing, the Tribunal was in error in setting aside the orders of Income-tax authorities regarding the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) and directing the Assessing Officer to follow its prior order in ITA Nos. 384 to 390(ASR)/1989 for assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88. The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its decision. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The revenue's counsel fairly stated that a connected matter, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. Quality Packs, ITR Nos. 34 to 41 of 1992, was decided by the High Court on November 14, 2006, with the question answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.20 of 1992 & I.T.R Nos.20-A, 20-B, 20-C, 20-D, 20-E & 20-F of 1992 Date of decision:16.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar. -----Applicant Vs. M/s Jain Packwell Industries, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate for the revenue. -----

ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, arising out of its consolidated order dated 21.12.1990 in I.T.A. Nos.706 to 712(ASR)/1989 in respect of assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances prevailing in this case the Tribunal has been in error in setting aside the orders of Income- tax authorities regarding levy of interest under section 201(1A) and directing the Assessing Officer to follow the Tribunal’s order in I.T.A. No.384 to 390(ASR)/1989 in respect of assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88 on the question of levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income- tax Act, 1961.” Learned counsel for the revenue has very fairly stated that connected matter being The Commissioner of Income Tax,

Jalandhar

v. Quality Packs Maqsoodan, G.T. Road, Jalandhar, I.T.R. Nos.34 to 41 of 1992 has been decided by this Court on 14.11.2006 and the question has been answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

In view of above, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The references are disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 16, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →