M/S INDIAN TIMBER TRADERS vs. CIT AMRITSAR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel pointed out the Tribunal's ample jurisdiction to recall its order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Court found it inappropriate to answer the reference in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the reference was returned unanswered. The specific question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to recall its order under Section 254(2) was not decided on merits. The operative direction is that the reference is returned unanswered, meaning no relief was granted or denied on the substantive issues of the appeal. The issue of the validity of the assessment or the profits in the 'P. Mal Khata' was not addressed by the High Court.
What were the facts?
This is a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, pursuant to a court direction dated September 23, 1988. The reference arises from MA No. 29/79 in ITA No. 289/78-79 for the assessment year 1971-72, decided by the ITAT on April 8, 1980. During the assessment of M/s Indian Timber Traders (the assessee), the Assessing Officer questioned why profits in the 'P. Mal Khata' should not be assessed in the hands of an 'Association of persons'. The assessment was made accordingly. The Appellate Authority set aside this assessment. However, on appeal by the Revenue, the ITAT upheld the order of re-assessment and directed the Appellate Authority to hear the assessee's appeal on other objections. Subsequently, both the assessee and the Revenue filed miscellaneous applications. The assessee sought recall of the ITAT's order, while the Revenue sought deletion of the direction to hear the assessee's objections. The Revenue's application was allowed to the extent of deleting the direction for hearing the assessee's appeal on other objections.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to recall its own order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to recall its order under Section 254(2) of the Act. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee on this point, other than their application for recall. 2. Whether the High Court should answer the reference in the absence of the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact) The Revenue, through its counsel, was present. The judgment does not explicitly state the Revenue's argument on this specific procedural point, but their presence implies an expectation for the reference to be answered. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee regarding the absence of their counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I. T. R. No. 97 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. R. No. 97 of 1990 Date of Decision : December 10, 2008.
M/s Indian Timber Traders, Pathankot .... Applicant Vs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Naveender P. K. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Revenue. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. This reference has been made in pursuance of direction of this Court dated 23.09.1988, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, arising out of MA No. 29/79 in ITA No. 289/78-79 for the assessment year 1971-72, which has been decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 08.04.1980. 2. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment of the assessee, raised a question why the profits in P. Mal Khata in the books of M/s Indian Timber Traders be not assessed in the hands of “Association of persons”. Assessment was made accordingly. The assessment was set aside by the Appellate Authority, but on appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the order of re-assessment and directed the Appellate Authority to
I. T. R. No. 97 of 1990 2 hear assessee's appeal in respect of other objections. The Revenue as well as the assessee made miscellaneous applications. The application of the assessee was for recall of the order of the Tribunal and application of the Revenue was for deleting the direction for hearing assessee's objections. The application of the Revenue was allowed to the extent of deleting the direction for hearing the assessee's appeal in respect of other objections against validity of assessment. 3. Though learned counsel for the Revenue points out that Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to recall its order under Section 254 (2) of the Act, in absence of the assessee, we do not consider it appropriate to answer the reference. 4. The reference is returned unanswered. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 10, 2008
( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
