1993 PLP 1404 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MAHENDRA KUMAR BANSAL
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1404 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 200 I T R 336 |
| Bench Members | Om Parkash and R.K Gulati, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MAHENDRA KUMAR BANSAL |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1404 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1404 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 200 I T R 336 bench comprising: Om Parkash and R.K Gulati, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1404 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MAHENDRA KUMAR BANSAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Tribunal whether correct in setting aside Commissioner's order passed in revision
Mixed question of law and fact which has to be referred
Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256 &
263. Held, that the questions whether the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, that the Commissioner of Income-tax had failed to establish .the nexus between the stock found at the time of the search and the assessment under appeal and whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax under section 263 were mixed questions of law and fact which had to be referred.
Judgment & Decree
Tribunal whether correct in setting aside Commissioner's order passed in revision
Mixed question of law and fact which has to be referred
Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256 &
263. Held, that the questions whether the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, that the Commissioner of Income-tax had failed to establish .the nexus between the stock found at the time of the search and the assessment under appeal and whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax under section 263 were mixed questions of law and fact which had to be referred. These are three applications made by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring us to direct the Income tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case in all the matters and refer the following common questions to this Court for its opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 holding that it was based on mere suspicion and surmises? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in drawing a conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax has failed to establish nexus between the stock found at the time of search and the assessment under appeal?" Inasmuch as, in our opinion, all the aforesaid questions are mixed questions of law and fact, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `B', New Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case for each assessment year and refer the aforementioned questions to this Court for its opinion. The applications are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.BA./2383/T Applications allowed.