THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX,ROHTAK vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITC/16/1993HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021867199328 April 2008Bench: MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's petition. The Court noted that the ITAT's decision in the present case was based on its earlier order in the case of co-assessee Jainender Kumar Jain for assessment year 1976-77. The ITAT had followed the Supreme Court's decision in C.I.T. v. Hindustan Housing Board and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524, holding that proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act were bad in law. The revenue conceded that no reference was filed against the ITAT's decision in the co-assessee's case, and that decision had become final. In light of this, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the High Court found no reason to ask the Tribunal to refer the question of law. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak (the petitioner/revenue) filed a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking a reference of a question of law to the High Court. The question arose from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order dated 30.10.1991, in ITA No. 5214 (Del)/90, concerning assessment year 1977-78, for the assessee Sh. Devinder Kumar Jain. The ITAT's decision was based on its prior ruling in a co-assessee's case, Jainender Kumar Jain, for assessment year 1976-77. The revenue stated that no reference was filed against the co-assessee's case, which had become final.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is no justification for assessing interest amounts in various years in the hands of the assessee, especially when the payment of enhanced compensation or quantification of enhanced compensation was in dispute? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The ITAT's decision, which the revenue is challenging, was based on its earlier decision in a co-assessee's case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the ITAT was not right in law in holding that there was no justification for assessing interest amounts in the hands of the assessee, particularly when the quantification of enhanced compensation was disputed. The revenue sought to have this question of law referred to the High Court for its opinion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 147(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.C. No. 16 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION : 28.04.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak .... PETITIONER Versus Sh. Devinder Kumar Jain ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

* * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This petition has been filed by the revenue under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for asking the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this Court : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is no justification for assessing interest amounts in various years in the hands of the assessee especially when the payment of enhanced compensation or quantification of enhanced compensation was in dispute?” According to the petitioner, the aforesaid question of law is arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 30.10.1991 in ITA No. 5214 (Del)/90 for the

ITC No. 16 of 1993 -2- assessment year 1977-78, in case of assessee Devinder Kumar Jain. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has taken the decision on the basis of its earlier decision in ITA No. 5223 (Del) 1990 in case of the co-assessee Jainender Kumar Jain for the assessment year 1976-77. In that order, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Hindustan Housing Board and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524, it was held that proceedings under Section 147 (a) of the Act were bad in law. Counsel for the petitioner, on written instructions from the department, states that against the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 5223 (Del) 1990 for the assessment year 1976-77, in case of co-assessee Jainender Kumar Jain, probably no reference was filed and that decision has become final. In view of the aforesaid fact and the law laid down in Hindustan Housing Board's case (supra) and when decision of the co- assessee Jainender Kumar Jain has attained finality, we are not inclined to ask the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question of law to this Court. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 28, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →