CIT PATIALA vs. M/S RANGILA RAM

PDF · subscribers

ITR/152/1998HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01037942199815 November 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an identical issue concerning the assessee, M/s. Rangila Ram and others, had already been decided by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Rangila Ram and others, (2002) 254 ITR 230. The Supreme Court's decision answered this issue in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, following the Supreme Court's precedent, the High Court answered the referred question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly. No specific findings on the merits of the ITAT's order were elaborated by the High Court, as it relied entirely on the Supreme Court's judgment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Rangila Ram & Co., sought registration as a firm for assessment year 1981-82. The assessee obtained a liquor vend in auction in the name of a firm with certain partners. However, at the time of contract execution, other partners were included, who were different from those in whose name the contract was initially auctioned. The Assessing Officer refused registration on this ground. The appellate authority set aside this refusal and allowed registration, a decision upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) filed a reference to the High Court against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the DCIT (A)'s orders granting registration to the firm under section 185(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which was upheld, implies the assessee argued for the validity of the firm's registration despite the change in partners between auction and contract execution. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the CIT, argued that the ITAT erred in upholding the registration, likely based on the discrepancy in partners between the auction and the contract execution, implying a violation of the conditions for registration under Section 185(1)(b).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

185(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No.152 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.152 of 1998 Date of decision:15.11.2006 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

....Petitioner versus M/s. Rangila Ram & Co., Rampur, District Shimla (HP) ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue. JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal), arising out of its order dated 8.4.1997 in ITA No.33/Chandi/93, for the assessment year 1981-82:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the DCIT (A)'s orders granting registration to the firm under section 185(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961?” The assessee got a liquor vend in auction in the name of a firm comprising of some partners but subsequently, the assessee firm included other partners also at the time of execution of contract, though, the newly included partners were different from the partners of the firm in whose name the contract was auctioned. The Assessing Officer refused permission for registration of firm on that ground. The appellate authority, however, set aside the said view and allowed the registration, which view was upheld

ITR No.152 of 1998 2 by the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the findings recorded. We find that an identical issue has been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the assessee in CIT v. Rangila Ram and others, (2002) 254 ITR 230 and has been answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. For the reasons stated therein, the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 15, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →