Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. KANPUR versus F. MOHD. AND SONS LUCKNOW.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. Kanpur v. F. Mohd. And Sons Lucknow. - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 171 of 1993 [2005] RD-AH 5267 (8 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 10

Income Tax Reference No. 171 of 1993

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)

Vs.

M/s. Faqir Mohd. & Sons

********

Hon�??ble A.K. Yog, J.

Hon�??ble Dilip Gupta, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal Senior advocate representing the Revenue Department.  

In pursuance to the order dated 25th February, 1993 passed by this Court under Section 256 (2), Income Tax Act, 1961 (called the �??Act�??) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Bench Allahabad was required to refer the question for the opinion of the Court which reads:-

�??Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon�??ble Tribunal was justified in recalling its order dated 9.7.1990 in I.T.A. No. 39 (Alld.)/1989 for the assessment year 1985-86 for rehearing of the appeal on merits afresh.�??

Accordingly the statement was drawn and matter was referred to this Court.

The firm M/s. Faqir Mohd. & Sons, Lucknow (called the �??Assessee�??) was engaged in the manufacture and sale of tobacco. For the Assessment Year 1985-86 the Assessee submitted its return but the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,30,444/-. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, which deleted the entire addition holding that provisions of Section 145(1) of the Act were not applicable to the instant case. The Department then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 9th July, 1990 reversed the findings of the first Appellate Authority but it directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the amount in the light of the observations made in the order. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions the Assessing Officer by the order dated 31.1.1991 determined the amount to the extent of Rs. 25,23,429.50/-. At this stage the Assessee filed Miscellaneous Application under Section 254 (2) of the Act before the Tribunal for recalling its order dated 9th July, 1990 because as a result of the order of the Tribunal, the income of the Assessee was enhanced which power the Tribunal did not possess. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 9th July, 1990 was recalled by the order dated 3.5.1991 and direction was given for hearing the appeal afresh on merit. The relevant directions contained in paragraph nos. 7 and 8 have been quoted in the statement of the case.

It is not disputed that in pursuance to the order dated 3rd May, 1991, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad heard the matter afresh and decided the appeal vide order dated 9th June, 1997 (copy of which has been filed along with the paper book at page Nos. 12 to 29).

In view of the above, we find that there is no necessity for this Court to answer the question referred to us. The question is returned unanswered.

Date: 8.11.2005

NSC


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.