JASMINDER KAUR KOONER vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ORS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/551/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073696200523 November 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it was being dismissed in the same terms as its judgment rendered on the same day in Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Kooner v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, I.T.A. No.96 of 2005. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law regarding Section 127 compliance, jurisdiction, and consideration of the husband's land holdings are not detailed in this judgment. The reasoning for the dismissal is based on the precedent set by the related appeal. No specific relief was granted to the assessee, and no issues were expressly left undecided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Jasminder Kaur Kooner, filed an appeal against the order dated January 11, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment years 1994-95, 1996-97, and 1997-98. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was hearing this appeal. The High Court noted that its decision in this appeal would be in line with its judgment rendered on the same day in a related case, Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Kooner v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, I.T.A. No.96 of 2005. The procedural history leading to the Tribunal's order is not detailed in this judgment.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was complied with in the present case? 2. Who had the jurisdiction to decide the appellant's case, and whether all facets of Section 127 were complied with? 3. Whether the authorities were bound to consider the land holdings held and cultivated by the appellant's husband? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee raised questions concerning the compliance with Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the jurisdiction of the authorities. The assessee also contended that the authorities should have considered the land holdings of the appellant's husband. The specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the assessee are not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.551 of 2005 Date of decision: 23.11.2006 Smt. Jasminder Kaur Kooner., Jalandhar. ---Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax etc. ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mamta Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant. Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate for the respondents. ----- ORDER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.01.2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, “the Tribunal”) in I.T.A. Nos.288 to 290(ASR)/2001 in respect of the assessment years 1994-95, 1996-97 and 1997-98, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the compliance of Section 127 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been made in the present case? ii) Who would have the jurisdiction to decide the case of the appellant and whether the provisions of 127 in all its facets have been complied with? iii) Whether Authorities were bound to consider the land holdings held and being cultivated by husband of appellant?” In view of our judgment rendered today in Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Kooner v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, I.T.A. No.96 of 2005, this appeal is also dismissed in the same terms. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 23, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →