1998 PLP 2154 (PTD)
VISHNU KUMAR BAGHEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2154 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 221 I T R 738 |
| Bench Members | M. Katju and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | VISHNU KUMAR BAGHEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2154 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2154 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 221 I T R 738 bench comprising: M. Katju and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2154 (PTD) (VISHNU KUMAR BAGHEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Standing Counsel for Respondent.
- Heard Shri Rakesh Agarwal and Shri V.K. Pandey for the assessee and learned standing counsel for the Department.
Headnotes / Summary
Matter arguable
No mistake apparent on record
Tribunal holding order of I.T.O. justified
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 154 & 256(2). Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and in accordance with law when the matter was arguable and there was no mistake apparent on the record, is a question of law to be referred. Rakesh Agarwal and V.K. Pandey for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and in accordance with law when the matter was arguable and there was no mistake apparent on the record, is a question of law to be referred. Rakesh Agarwal and V.K. Pandey for Applicant. Standing Counsel for Respondent. Heard Shri Rakesh Agarwal and Shri V.K. Pandey for the assessee and learned standing counsel for the Department. In this case, three questions have been sought to be referred to us for our opinion under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that question No. l which is as follows is a question of law which deserves to be referred: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the order. passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 was justified and in accordance with law when the matter was arguable and there was no mistake apparent on the record?" Question No. 1 covers Questions Nos.2 and 3 hence those questions need not be called for. Hence, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to prepare a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question for out opinion. Application is allowed. M.B.A./1320/FC Application allowed.