BALBIR BASTI SC LAND OWNING CO vs. CIT AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
ITR/82/1998HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038065199807 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the case was called out for hearing, but no one appeared for the assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee, the Court deemed it inappropriate to delve into the merits of the questions of law referred. Consequently, the reference was returned unanswered. The Court did not make any findings on the issues raised or provide any reasoning on the merits of the case. No operative directions were issued, and no issues were left undecided as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owning Co-op. Soc., Faridkot (assessee) filed an Income Tax Reference (ITR No. 82 of 1998) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference arose from an order dated 8.4.1997 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1029(ASR)/90, concerning assessment year 1986-87. The ITAT had confirmed the view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which upheld the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) rejection of the assessee's application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was listed for hearing, but no one appeared for the assessee.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law referred by the ITAT: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the view of the CIT(A), upholding the order of the ITO in rejecting the application of the assessee moved under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the alternative ground of the assessee for reduction of Rs.1,56,065/- cost of stamp papers out of the total computation of capital gains, as the said ground does not arise out of the order of the authorities below? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments were recorded for the assessee as no one appeared on their behalf. Revenue: Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate, appeared for the Revenue. No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

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.82 of 1998 Date of decision: 7.11.2006 The Balbir Basti Scheduled Caste Land Owning Co-op. Soc., Faridkot ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax, Amnritsar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Dr.N.L.Sharda, Advocate for the Revenue.

JUDGMENT Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar arising out of its order dated 8.4.1997 passed in I.T.A.No.1029(ASR)/90, in respect of the assessment year 1986-87. “i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the view of the CIT(A), upholding the order of the ITO in rejecting the application of assessee moved under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the alternative ground of the assessee for reduction of Rs.1,56,065/- cost of stamp papers out of total computation of capital gains as the said ground does not arise out of the order of the authorities below? On case being called out for hearing, none appears for the assessee. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, we do not consider it appropriate to go into the merits of questions of law referred.

The reference is thus returned unanswered. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

Judge November 7, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal)

Pka Judge

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →