1991 PLP 101 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TAJ PRINTERS
| Citation | 1991 PLP 101 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahabad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | R.M. Sahai and R.K. Gulati, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TAJ PRINTERS |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 101 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 101 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahabad High Court (India) bench comprising: R.M. Sahai and R.K. Gulati, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 101 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TAJ PRINTERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Tribunal cancelling order of C.I.T. under S. 263 of ,Indian Income-tax Act, 1961
Question of law already decided by. High Court
C.I.T. not recording reasons as to how order of L.T.O. is erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue
Application liable to be rejected. The Tribunal cancelled the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On a reference application under section 256(2) of the Act: Held, that since the question of law stood already decided by the High Court, no question of law could be said to arise and on facts it had been found that the Commissioner did not record any reason as to how the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The application was liable to be rejected. Srivastava J. P. & Sons v. C.I.T. (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All.) ref. Bharatji Agarwal for the Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
R.M. SAHAI, J.--This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The following questions of law have been raised: "(1) Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invoked by the Commissioner of Income-tax merely on suspicion, law, he was not empowered to invoke section 263 in this case, by placing reliance on the decision of the Allababad High Court in the case of J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326, which does not apply to the facts of the present case, because of wide divergence of facts between that case and this case? (2) Whether, in law and the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of income=tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" From the very frame of the question, it is clear that the Tribunal has based its opinion on decisions given by this Court. Since the question of law stands already decided by this Court, no question of law can be said to arise and, on facts, it-has been found that the basic requirement for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 was missing as the Commissioner did not either set out the points for inquiry nor did he, record any reason or refer to any material as to how the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The application for directing the Tribunal, therefore, to submit a statement of case on the proposed questions of law is rejected. Z.S./733/T Order accordingly.