1990 PLP 239 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KULDIP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
| Citation | 1990 PLP 239 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab and Haryan High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | V. Ramaswami C.J. and G.R. Majithia, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KULDIP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 239 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 239 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab and Haryan High Court (India) bench comprising: V. Ramaswami C.J. and G.R. Majithia, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 239 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KULDIP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 26th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Reference‑‑Tribunal holding that C.I.T. (Appeals) could admit evidence of death of a person without giving opportunity to I.T.O. to rebut it as I.T.O. was given opportunity to rebut evidence‑‑Tribunal also holding that D whose death certificate was relied on by assessee was same person who was partner of assessee‑firm and firm was genuine‑‑Questions of law arose from Tribunal's order and could be referred. Ashok Bhan and A.K. Mittal for the Commissioner. H.L. Sibal and S.C. Sibal for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
H.L. Sibal and S.C. Sibal for the Assessee. Date of hearing: 26th September, 1988. V. RAMASWAMI, C.J.‑‑We are satisfied that the following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal and, accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions for its opinion: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was righting law in holding that the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) could, under section 250(4) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961, admit evidence of the death of Smt. Darshana Devi without giving any opportunity to the Income‑tax Officer to rebut the same as required under Rule 46‑A of the Income‑tax Rules, 1962? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income‑tax Officer was given reasonable opportunity to examine/rebut the evidence in the form of a death certificate of Smt. Darshana Devi? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the finding of the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) regarding genuineness of the firm was not questioned before the Appellate Tribunal? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Smt. Darshana Devi could not be said to be the same person as Smt. Darshana Devi Gupta of Ambala? (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the said Darshana Devi whose death certificate was relied upon by the assessee was the same person who was a partner of the assessee‑firm for the assessment year 1974‑75? (vi) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that a genuine firm was in existence for the assessment year 1974‑75?" Z.S./709/T Order accordingly.