C.I.T.AMRITSAR vs. M/S GEETU TRADERS ASR.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question of law referred to it had already been decided by the same Court in previous judgments. Specifically, it referred to its decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Jaico Steel Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2 of 2002, decided on 4.10.2004, which in turn followed an earlier judgment in Soda Silicate and Chemical Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 179 ITR 588. In these precedents, the question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, the High Court answered the present reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee's plea to not interfere with the Tribunal's order due to the small amount of tax involved was considered and declined, with the Court stating that such directions in prior cases were fact-specific and not indicative of a uniform practice. The reference was thus disposed of.
What were the facts?
This case involves a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order dated April 24, 1990, for the assessment year 1987-88. The ITAT had allowed the assessee, M/s Geetu Traders, Amritsar, a claim for a loss of Rs. 20,756/- in a 'Chit Account'. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, is the petitioner (Revenue), and M/s Geetu Traders is the respondent (assessee). The procedural history involves the ITAT's decision being challenged via a reference to the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of loss of Rs. 20,756/- in the Chit Account during the previous year relevant to the Assessment year 1987-88? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, argued that even if the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue, the order of the Tribunal should not be interfered with because the amount of tax involved (Rs. 20,756/-) is small. They relied on the High Court's Full Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Aruna Luthra, (2001) 252 ITR 76, for this submission. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's argument is implicitly presented through the High Court's reliance on its previous judgments. The judgment states that the question has already been gone into by this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Jaico Steel Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2 of 2002, decided on 4.10.2004, which followed an earlier judgment in Soda Silicate and Chemical Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 179 ITR 588.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT 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 order dated 24.4.1990 passed in I.T.A.No.776/ASR/1989, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of loss of Rs.20,756/- in the Chit Account during the previous year relevant to the Assessment year 1987-88?”
The question has already been gone into by this Court in the judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/S Jaico Steel Fastenrs Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.2 of 2002, decided on 4.10.2004 wherein following the earlier judgment -2- *** Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 179 ITR 588, the question has been answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Accordingly, the question referred is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Learned counsel for the assessee referred to Full Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Smt.Aruna Luthra, (2001) 252 ITR 76 to submit that the amount of tax involved in the present case being small i.e. on addition of Rs.20,756/- only even if question of law is answered in favour of the revenue, the order of the Tribunal may not be interferred with. We have considered this submission of the learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that direction for not giving effect to the order against the assessee was given in facts and circumstances of the case in an appeal and the same cannot be held to be a part of any uniform practice. We, therefore, decline prayer made on behalf of the assessee.
The reference is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge November 2, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal)
Pka Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- Kundan Patel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Pacific Export vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Kashiram Fuels Lole Propritorship Firm Through Proprietor Swati vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
