C I T, LUDHIANA vs. PAWAN KANT, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers

ITR/21/1996HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01034990199616 November 2009Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the referred question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reasoning provided is that the matter is covered by the High Court's own earlier decision in ITR No. 7 of 1989, dated August 30, 2004, which dealt with the same parties and likely a similar issue. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been definitively decided by the High Court in a previous case involving the same parties, subsequent references on the same issue will follow the precedent. The operative direction is that the reference is disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (Revenue) has filed an Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 21 of 1996 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. This reference arises from an order dated November 14, 1994, passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1074/Chandi/1989. The assessment year in question is 1982-83. The dispute pertains to the exclusion of share income attributable to 36% of the assessee's right, title, and interest in M/s Munjal Sales Corpn. from the assessee's total income. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the share income attributable to 36% of the assessee's right, title and interest of his share income in M/s Munjal Sales Corpn. was to be excluded from the assessee's total income? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee's counsel. However, the outcome suggests the assessee supported the ITAT's decision. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the revenue fairly stated that the matter is covered by an earlier order of the High Court dated August 30, 2004, in ITR No. 7 of 1989 (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. Shri Pawan Kant, Ludhiana).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No. 21 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 21 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: November 16, 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus Shri Pawan Kant HUF, Ludhiana. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Krishan Mehta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ORDER 1. Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, out of its order dated dated 14.11.1994 in I.T.A. No. 1074/Chandi/1989 for the assessment year 1982-83:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the share income attributable to 36% of the assessee's right, title and interest of his share income in M/s Munjal Sales Corpn. was to be excluded from the assessee's total income ?”

ITR No. 21 of 1996 2 f2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered by the earlier order of this Court dated 30.8.2004 in ITR No. 7 of 1989 (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. Shri Pawan Kant, Ludhiana). 3. Accordingly, referred question is decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 4. Reference is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 16, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem

JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →