M/S.SHREE LAXMI DAL & GEN.MILL vs. THE C.I.T. PTA.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/181/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038624199903 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 68,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
I.T.R No.181 of 1999 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R No.181 of 1999 Date of decision: 3.11.2006 M/S Shree Laxmi Dal & General Mills, Kotkapura ...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. 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 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

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →