Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandha v. Smt. Santosh Mahey. - ITC-21-1992 [2006] RD-P&H 4743 (25 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

I.T.C. No.21 of 1992

Date of decision: 27.07.2006

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar.

---Appellant

Vs.

M/s Smt. Santosh Mahey.

-----Respondent

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

Present: Mr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate

for the respondent.

-----

ORDER:

The assessee, besides being a partner in certain firms was a co-owner in the property known as "Mahay Building". The other co-owners being K.D. Mahay and Anjna Mahay, each owing 1/3rd

share in the said property.

In his consolidated order dated 28.3.1982, Income Tax Officer completed assessment for the years 1977-78 to 1980-81, wherein share of the assessee in the said property was also determined.

The first appellate authority accepted the appeal of the assessee and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of giving an opportunity to the assessee to prove correct share of income from various firms. Accordingly, the assessment was reframed. But in appeal, the appellate authority enhanced the quantum of income from the house property by disallowing certain expenses.

The Tribunal disapproved the enhancement on the short question that since remand was on limited question of share of the assessee, finality on the question of quantum of income could not be disturbed.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has filed this petition for referring following question of law for determination by this Court:-

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition made by the appellate Assistant commissioner of income-tax, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar in computing the income of the assessee under the head house property?"

Learned counsel for the revenue, however, submits that the assessee himself had taken a ground touching the quantum of income also which would confer jurisdiction on the appellate authority to go into this. We are unable to accept this submission. In remand, limited to a particular point, the authority could not have touched other findings. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot, thus, be faulted with.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

July 27, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )

ashwani JUDGE


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.