C.I.T. vs. GURU AMARJIT SINGH KARTARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITR/53/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032518199522 January 2008Bench: MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred in the present case is identical to the question referred in ITR No. 130 of 1992. The Court had previously answered ITR No. 130 of 1992 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, relying on its decision in 254 ITR 510. Therefore, following the precedent set in the earlier case, the present reference was also ordered to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The ITAT's finding that the reference under Section 144B was bad in law and the assessment was barred by limitation was upheld. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, referred a question of law to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning an assessment order dated September 2, 1983, for Assessment Year 1980-81. The ITAT had held that the reference made under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law and the assessment was barred by limitation. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, was the applicant, and Guru Amarjit Singh, Kartarpur, was the respondent assessee. The present reference was listed along with ITR No. 130 of 1992, which involved identical questions of law for Assessment Years 1983-84 and 1984-85, with the same assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reference made under Section 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 was bad in law? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment made on 2.9.1983 is barred by limitation? The revenue contended that the question referred in this case is covered by the decision of this Court in ITR No. 130 of 1992, which was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The revenue further stated that the said decision was based on the Court's earlier decision in 254 ITR 510. The assessee did not present any separate arguments, as the revenue acknowledged that the matter was covered by the previous ruling.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. No.53 of 1995 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 22, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar .....APPLICANT Versus Guru Amarjit Singh, Kartarpur ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the applicant-revenue. Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent/assessee. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, vide its order dated 12.08.1993 has sent the reference to this Court on the following question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reference made under Section 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 was bad in law and the assessment made on 2.9.1983 is barred by limitation?” Earlier an order was passed by this court that the question involved in the present reference is identical with the question referred to this court in ITR No.130 of 1992, therefore, the present reference was ordered to be listed along with that reference. A perusal of the file of ITR No.130 of 1992 shows that the said reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in view of the decision given by this

I.T.R. No.53 of 1995 -2- court in 254 ITR 510. It has been informed that the earlier reference pertained to the Assessment Years 1983-84 & 1984-85 whereas the present reference is pertaining to the Assessment Year 1980-81, though the assessee in both the cases is the same. Counsel for the revenue submitted that the question referred in this reference is also covered by the said decision and it has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Ordered accordingly. Disposed of. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

January 22, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →