CIT LUDHIANA vs. GURMAIL KAUR TRUST 655 LUDHIAN

PDF · subscribers
ITR/74/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038764199921 December 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that the question of law referred by the ITAT was identical to a question previously decided by the same court. In a prior judgment dated April 16, 2004, in ITR Nos. 47 to 49 of 1989 – The Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana vs Smt. Gurmail Kaur Trust, Ludhiana, the court had already ruled against the revenue on an identical issue. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court answered the referred question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly, implying that the ITAT's finding that the trust was not discretionary and not assessable under Section 164 was upheld.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference of a question of law by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference arises from the ITAT's order dated June 6, 1997, in I.T.A. No. 942/Chandi/1993, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92. The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, and the respondent is Smt. Gurmail Kaur Trust. The core of the dispute concerns whether the trust could be treated as a discretionary trust for assessment purposes under Section 164 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

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 there is no legal infirmity insofar as this trust is concerned and that it could not be treated as discretionary one to be assessed as per the provisions of section 164 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argues that the trust is not discretionary and therefore not subject to assessment under Section 164. This is inferred from the ITAT's finding that there was no legal infirmity and the trust could not be treated as discretionary. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, by seeking this reference, contends that the trust should have been treated as a discretionary one and assessed under Section 164 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 164

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR 74 of 1999 (O&M) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .... Applicant vs Smt. Gurmail Kaur Trust, 655, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the revenue. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the assessee. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, has referred the following question of law for opinion of this court arising out of its order dated 6.6.1997 in I.T.A. No. 942/Chandi/1993 for the assessment year 1991-92:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there is no legal infirmity insofar as this trust is concerned and that it could not be treated as discretionary one to be assessed as per the provisions of section 164 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” Learned counsel for the parties fairly submit that identical question has been answered against the revenue vide order of this court dated 16.4.2004 in ITR Nos. 47 to 49 of 1989 – The Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana vs Smt. Gurmail Kaur Trust, Ludhiana. In view of the above, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge 21.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge

More judgments on Section 164

All 181 judgments and leading authorities on Section 164 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →