C.I.T. LDH. vs. M/S SH. PANKAJ MUNJAL

PDF · subscribers
ITR/87/1997HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035463199711 May 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the reference as not pressed. The revenue, citing CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated it did not wish to press the reference due to the tax effect being less than ₹ 20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the reference if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the reference by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

This case concerns Income Tax Reference No. 87 of 1997 (O&M) filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Ludhiana (the appellant-revenue) against M/s Shri Pankaj Munjal, Ludhiana (the respondent-assessee) for the assessment year 1986-87. The reference arose from an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), ITA No.1180/Chandi/92, which in turn stemmed from RA No. 40/Chandi/97. The core of the dispute revolves around the ITAT's decision regarding the set-off of losses from a trust in the hands of the assessee beneficiaries.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that after assessment having been framed in the case of the trust as per provisions of sections 160/161 read with 166 of the Income-tax Act, share of loss from the trust was liable for set off in the hands of the assessee beneficiaries? Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The appellant-revenue submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, it did not wish to press the present reference as the tax effect involved was less than ₹ 20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the reference if something survived therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 160,Section 161,Section 166

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No. 87 of 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 87 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus M/s Shri Pankaj Munjal, Ludhiana

......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This reference has been filed in RA No. 40/Chandi/97 arising out of ITA No.1180/Chandi/92, for the assessment year 1986-87, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that after assessment having been framed in the case of the trust as per provision of section 160/161 read with 166 of the Income-tax Act, share of loss from the trust was liable for the set off in the hands of the assessee beneficiaries?. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present reference as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

ITR No. 87 of 1997 (O&M) -2- liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the reference in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the reference by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.05.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 160

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 160 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →