C,I,T, LUDHIANA vs. PAWAN KANT, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers

ITR/65/1994HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01024722199405 December 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the reference in the same terms as its earlier decision in I.T.R. No.7 of 1989. Although the specific findings and reasoning of the ITAT are not detailed in this judgment, the High Court's decision implies affirmation of the ITAT's view. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference in line with the precedent. The principle established by the earlier judgment, which this case follows, would concern the determination of ownership of property received on partition and the taxability of income arising therefrom in the hands of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The specific relief granted or denied by the ITAT is not detailed here, but the High Court's action suggests it upheld the ITAT's conclusion regarding the HUF's ownership and income assessment.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the 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 April 22, 1993, in I.T.A. No.861/Chandi/1988, pertains to the assessment year 1983-84. The dispute concerns whether property received by the assessee, Shri Pawan Kant (HUF), on partial partition, along with its accretions, belonged to the HUF and if the income therefrom was assessable in the hands of the HUF. The High Court noted that the matter was covered by a previous decision of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the property received by the assessee on partial partition and accretions thereto belonged to the assessee HUF and that the income flowing therefrom was assessable in the hands of the HUF? The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment, other than implicitly challenging the ITAT's finding on the ownership of the property and the consequential taxability of income in the hands of the HUF. The High Court noted that the matter was covered by its prior decision in I.T.R. No.7 of 1989 – The Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Shri Pawan Kant, Ludhiana decided on 30.8.2004.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** I.T.R. No.65 of 1994 Date of Decision:5.12.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .....Petitioner Vs. Shri Pawan Kant (HUF), Ludhiana

.....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. S.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. **** ORDER The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.861/Chandi/ 1988 dated 22.4.1993 in respect of assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the property received by the assessee on partial partition and accretions thereto belonged to the assessee HUF and that the income flowing therefrom was assessable in the hands of the HUF?” It is not disputed by the learned counsel for parties that the matter is covered by order of this Court in I.T.R. No.7 of 1989 – The Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Shri Pawan Kant, Ludhiana decided on 30.8.2004. In view of the above statement, the reference is disposed of in the same terms.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE December 5, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →