C.I.T. LDH. vs. SHRI PAWAN KANT LDH.

PDF · subscribers

ITR/27/1994HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01024695199425 January 2007Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred by the Revenue was already decided in favour of the assessee by a Division Bench of the same Court in ITR No. 7 of 1989, decided on August 30, 2004. The Court found the assessee's contention to be meritorious and deserving of acceptance. The Revenue's counsel was unable to successfully dispute this prior ruling. Therefore, the question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. The reference was disposed of in line with this finding. The operative direction was to answer the question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, effectively upholding the ITAT's decision.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, against Shri Pawan Kant, Ludhiana, for the assessment year 1983-84. The reference pertains to an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 533/Chandi/1987. The core issue revolves around whether property received by the assessee on partial partition and its subsequent accretion until March 31, 1980, belonged to his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) styled M/s Pawan Kant and Sons, and if the income from this property was includible in his individual assessment. The High Court was asked to decide on a question of law referred by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the property received by the assessee on partial partition and accretion thereto up to 31.03.1980 belonged to the assessee's HUF styled M/s Pawan Kant and Sons, and that income flowing therefrom was not includible in his 'individual' assessment? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel pointed out that this specific question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by a Division Bench of this Court in ITR No. 7 of 1989, decided on August 30, 2004. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel did not successfully dispute the position taken by the assessee's counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.R. No. 27 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. No. 27 of 1994 Date of decision: 25.01.2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .........Applicant Versus Shri Pawan Kant, Ludhiana ...........Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate for the Revenue Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the Assessee -.- M.M. KUMAR

, J. (Oral)

On the application made by the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred to the following question of law in I.T.A. No. 533/Chandi/1987 for the assessment year 1983-84:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the property received by the assessee on partial partition and accretion thereto upto 31.03.80 belonged to the assessee's HUF styled M/s Pawan Kant and Sons and that income flowing therefrom was not includible in his 'individual' assessment?” Learned counsel for assessee has pointed out that the aforementioned question has been answered in favour of the assessee and

I.T.R. No. 27 of 1994 -2- against the revenue in I.T.R. No. 7 of 1989 by a Division Bench of this Court. We have perused the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in I.T.R. No. 7 of 1989, decided on 30.08.2004 and find that the contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee is meritorious and deserves to be accepted. The aforementioned position has not been successfully disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. In view of the above, the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. This reference is , accordingly, disposed of.

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

JANUARY 25, 2007 mohan

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →