M/S.SHREE LAXMI DAL & GEN.MILL vs. THE C.I.T. PTA.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the case was called for hearing, but none appeared for the assessee. In the absence of any representation on behalf of 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 specific findings of the ITAT on the issues of unexplained credits under Section 68 and disallowances under Section 40A(3), as well as the reasoning behind those findings, were not examined by the High Court due to the assessee's non-appearance. No operative directions were issued, and no issue was left undecided by the High Court itself, as it did not decide the merits.
What were the facts?
This case involves a reference of questions of law by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee is M/s Shree Laxmi Dal & General Mills, Kotkapura, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala. The ITAT's order under challenge is dated January 23, 1998, passed in I.T.A. No. 200/ASR/1991. The dispute pertains to additions made as unexplained credits and disallowances under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The amount in dispute for the addition is Rs. 5,34,785/-, and for the disallowance is Rs. 2,64,634/-.
What were the issues?
The High Court was asked to decide four questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,34,785/- as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee itself should have come forward with an explanation about the credits and not waited for the Assessing Officer (AO) to issue a letter requiring the assessee to explain the credits. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 40A(3) were attracted to transactions recorded in Register 'J', which pertained to business done outside the books of account as per the AO. 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,64,634/- made under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear to present any arguments. The revenue, represented by Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate, presumably supported the ITAT's order upholding the additions and disallowances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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 23.1.1998 passed in I.T.A.No.200/ASR/1991, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88. “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs.534785/- as unexplained credits u/s 68? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee itself should have come forward with an explanation about the credits and not waited for the A.O. to issue letter requiring the assessee to explain the credits. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 40 A(3) were attracted to the transaction found recorded in Register “J”which pertained to business done outside the books of account
I.T.R No.181 of 1999 -2- *** as per the A.O. himself? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of Rs.264634/- made u/s.40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 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 3, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026