CIT, AMRITSAR vs. M/S DESH PAL TILAK RAJ

PDF · subscribers

ITR/1/1979HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01000261197903 November 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the revenue, decided not to go into the merits of the reference. The Court noted that a small amount was involved and the Tribunal had merely remanded the matter. Crucially, the result of the remand proceedings was not yet known. Therefore, the Court deemed it inappropriate to adjudicate on the merits of the reference at that stage. The reference was accordingly returned unanswered. The principle derived is that a High Court may decline to answer a reference if the matter is interlocutory, the amount involved is small, and the ultimate outcome is uncertain due to ongoing proceedings at lower appellate levels.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Amritsar (Revenue) filed a reference application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. The assessment year in question is 1962-63. The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs. 10,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as income from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer had also treated an entry of Rs. 8,000/- from M/s. Modern Industries, Batala as not genuine. The Tribunal, on further appeal, set aside the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding the Rs. 10,000/- addition and remanded the case for a fresh finding.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as to the addition of Rs. 10,000/- as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and remanding the case to him with directions to record a fresh finding on this item? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by Dr. N.L. Sharda, advocate, argued the case. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments beyond its participation in the hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No.1 of 1979 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 1of 1979 Date of decision:3.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Amritsar

....Petitioner versus M/s. Desh Pal Tilak Raj Partap Bazar, Amritsar ....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, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, 'the Tribunal') arising out of its order dated 27.4.1977 in ITA Nos.506 and 507(ASR)/1975-76, for the assessment year 1962-63:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as to the addition of Rs.10,000/- as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and remanding the case to him with directions to record a fresh finding on this item?” During the course of assessment, the Asessing Officer held that advance of Rs.10,000/- shown to M/s. Jupiter Steel Industries, Batala in the accounts books of the assessee was his undisclosed income. Entry in the account books showing cash credit of Rs.8000/- from M/s. Modern Industries, Batala, was not accepted as genuine. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the matter should be re-examined and a clear finding should be recorded as to under which provision, addition of Rs.10,000/- was made. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.

ITR No.1 of 1979 2 Having regard to the fact that small amount is involved and the Tribunal had merely remanded the matter and result of remand is not known, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate to go into the merits. Accordingly, the reference is returned unanswered. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 03, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →