2001 PLP 2246 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus J. K. BERI
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2246 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 5 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha and V. N. Khare, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus J. K. BERI |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2246 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2246 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 5 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha and V. N. Khare, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2246 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus J. K. BERI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Qadri, S.K. Dwivedi, Bipul Kumar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- R.K. Virmani and P. Mohanty, Advocates for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 10, 1998 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Income-tax Case No.55 of 1997).
Reassessment
Tribunal quashing reassessment on legal grounds alone without considering facts
Question of law arose
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 &256(2). Held, that since the Tribunal had stated that it had quashed the reassessment on legal grounds alone and had not adjudicated on the issues raised, the question whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in quashing the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1985-86 reopened under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was a question of law which had to be referred to the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that since the Tribunal had stated that it had quashed the reassessment on legal grounds alone and had not adjudicated on the issues raised, the question whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in quashing the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1985‑86 reopened under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was a question of law which had to be referred to the High Court. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Qadri, S.K. Dwivedi, Bipul Kumar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. R.K. Virmani and P. Mohanty, Advocates for Respondent. The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following question; "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in quashing the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1985‑86 reopened under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" It did so because on its reading, "the findings recorded by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal are findings of fact based on an appreciation of evidence. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at". The High Court was entirely in error in coming to the conclusion that the findings of the Tribunal were findings of fact. This is evident from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal and, more particularly the following sentences: "Thus, it is seen that none of the reasons mentioned by the Assessing Officer was recorded by him for reopening the assessment..." and "Since we have quashed that reassessment on the legal ground alone, we do not consider it proper to adjudicate the issues raised..." Clearly, a‑ question of law arises and the Tribunal is directed to refer to the High Court that question for its consideration, after drawing up a statement of case. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. M.B.A./935/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.