C.I.T. PATIALA vs. PB. WIRELESS SYSTEM LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITR/39/1997HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035405199722 November 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred to it had already been decided by the same court in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 in ITR No. 244 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s. Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali), decided on November 1, 2006. In that previous decision, the question was answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court answered the present reference against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was to answer the reference in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (Revenue) has referred a question of law to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh arising from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order, dated May 17, 1996, pertained to ITA Nos. 842 and 843/Chandi/90 for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The dispute concerns whether the manufacturing of wireless sets by Punjab Wireless System Limited (Assessee) falls under item No. 22 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that this very issue for assessment year 1983-84 had been decided by it in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that manufacturing of wireless sets does not fall in item No. 22 (read with its Explanation) of the Eleventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which is being upheld, implies the assessee's position that manufacturing wireless sets does not fall under the specified item. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, has sought a reference of this question of law to the High Court, indicating their disagreement with the ITAT's finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 22 of the Eleventh Schedule

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.39 of 1997 Date of decision:22.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala.

....Petitioner versus Punjab Wireless System Limited, SAS Nagar (Mohali) ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. SK Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the revenue. JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 17.5.1996 in ITA Nos.842 and 843/Chandi/90, for the assessment year 1984-85 and 1985-86:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that manufacturing of wireless sets does not fall in item No.22(read with its Explanation of the Eleventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961)?” It is not disputed that the question referred has been gone into by this Court in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 in ITR No.244 of 1995,( The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s. Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali) decided on 1.11.2006 and has been answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 22,2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →