Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Patiala. v. Shri Ajay Kumar Modi, Patiala. - ITR-21-1997 [2006] RD-P&H 9206 (26 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

I.T.R. No.21 of 1997

Date of decision: 02.11.2006

Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Patiala.

---Applicant

Vs.

Shri Ajay Kumar Modi, Patiala.

-----Respondent

AND

I.T.R. No.21-A of 1997

Date of decision: 02.11.2006

Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Patiala.

---Applicant

Vs.

Shri Amit Kumar Modi, Patiala.

-----Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present: Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate for the revenue.

-----

ORDER:

Following common question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its composite order dated 31.1.1996 in W.T.A. No.317/Chandi/90 and W.T.A. No.318/Chandi/90 in respect of assessment year 1988-89:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the ld. CWT(A) who had deleted the addition of Rs.1,31,511/Rs.77,522/- made on account of income tax refundable which was not shown by the assessee in the wealth tax return?"

The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,31,511/- in the case of the assessee, Ajay Kumar Modi and Rs.77,522/- in the case of Amit Kumar Modi rejecting the plea of the assessees that on the relevant date i.e. 31.3.1988, the amount of the tax had not been determined to be refundable and, therefore, the same could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee on the date of valuation. The CIT(A) upheld the plea of the assessee which order was affirmed by the Tribunal. Revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal.

I.T.R. No.21 of 1997

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the finding recorded.

The Tribunal has clearly held that the return under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the year in question was filed on 16.11.1988 and assessment under Section 143(1) was framed on 28.11.1988 and, thus, as on 31.03.1988, the date of valuation, the amount was not refundable to the assessee and could not be included in the wealth of the said year.

In view of the facts found, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount which was not refundable in the assessment year 1988-89, could not be included in the wealth of the assessee for the said year.

Accordingly, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

November 02, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )

ashwani JUDGE

Pag

e

num


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.