C.I.T PATIALA vs. SMT.POONAM RANI, LDH

ITR/30/1993HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021928199326 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court was unable to go into the merits of the question referred. The revenue's counsel could not establish how the referred question of law arose from the ITAT's order, particularly in light of a previous ITAT decision in I.T.A. No. 558 of 1986 which had already held proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to be time-barred. Furthermore, the revenue's counsel was unable to provide information regarding the outcome of any subsequent appeals challenging the order passed under Section 263. Consequently, the Court found itself unable to adjudicate the matter on its merits. The reference was therefore returned unanswered.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the revenue) against Smt. Poonam Rani, Ludhiana (the assessee). The reference arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, dated February 21, 1991, concerning assessment year 1983-84. The ITAT's order was in relation to an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on July 10, 1990, which itself was a consequence of an order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue's counsel was unable to demonstrate how the referred question of law arose from the ITAT's order, particularly in light of a separate ITAT order in I.T.A. No. 558 of 1986 which had held proceedings under Section 263 to be time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 20.2.1986 was barred by time in view of the amendment made in section 263 of the Income-tax Act? The revenue contended that the High Court should consider the referred question of law. However, the revenue's counsel was unable to show how this question arose from the ITAT's order, especially given a prior ITAT ruling that proceedings under Section 263 were time-barred. The revenue's counsel also could not apprise the Court about the fate of any further proceedings challenging the order passed under Section 263.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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.30 of 1993 Date of decision: 26.10.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. ---Applicant Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani, Ludhiana. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the revenue. -----

ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 21.02.1991 in I.T.A. No.1329 and C.O. No.59/Ch/1990 in respect of assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 20.2.1986 was barred by time in view of the amendment made in section 263 of the Income-tax Act?”

We have perused the order of the Tribunal and heard learned counsel for the revenue. Learned counsel for the revenue is unable to show as to how the question referred will arise from the order of the Tribunal arising out of the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 10.07.1990 passed in appeal against

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →