THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX,ROHTAK vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITC/17/1993HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021869199328 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 under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the ITAT's decision was based on its prior order in the case of a co-assessee, Jainender Kumar Jain, for the assessment year 1976-77. This prior order had followed the Supreme Court's ruling in C.I.T. v. Hindustan Housing Board and Land Development Trust Ltd., which held that proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act were bad in law. Crucially, the revenue's counsel stated that the decision in the co-assessee's case had become final, as no reference was filed against it. Given this finality and the established legal precedent, the High Court was not inclined to direct the ITAT to refer the question of law to the court. Therefore, the revenue's 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 an order dated 30.10.1991 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 5219 (Del)/91 for the assessment year 1976-77, concerning the assessee Sh. Satinder Kumar Jain. The ITAT's decision was based on its prior ruling in a co-assessee's case, Jainender Kumar Jain, for the same assessment year. The revenue's counsel stated that the decision in the co-assessee's case had become final, as no reference was filed against it. The High Court was considering whether to direct the ITAT to refer the question of law.

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 or quantification of enhanced compensation was in dispute? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's decision was based on its earlier order in a co-assessee's case, which in turn 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. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, sought to refer the aforementioned question of law to the High Court. The revenue's primary submission was that the ITAT's order was erroneous. However, the revenue also acknowledged that the decision of the co-assessee, Jainender Kumar Jain, for the same assessment year, which was relied upon by the ITAT, had become final as no reference was filed against it.

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. 17 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION : 28.04.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak .... PETITIONER Versus Sh. Satinder 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

ITC No. 17 of 1993 -2- the Tribunal's order dated 30.10.1991 in ITA No. 5219 (Del)/91 for the assessment year 1976-77, in case of assessee Satinder 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 →