Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Lt. Col. Kapil Mohan Vs. Cit

Lt. Col. Kapil Mohan vs Cit

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 23, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710146

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Reference No. 122 of 1984 23 April 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the Delhi High Court Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lt. Col. Kapil Mohan

Advocate Anoop Sharma and; R.K. Raghvan,;for the assessed; R.C. Pand

Respondent

Cit

Legal References

Reported In
[2001]119TAXMAN132(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arijit pasayat, c.j. & d.k. jain, j. - arijit pasayat, c.j.at the instance of the assessed, following questions have been referred under section 256(1) (herein after referred to as the act) 1961 income tax act for opinion of this court by the tribunal, delhi bench c:'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally right in adjudicating upon the question that the variation in the income returned by the applicant was not more than rs. 1 lakh and, accordingly, in holding that the commissioner (appeals) was wrong in setting aside the assessment 2. if the answer to question no. 1 is in the negative, then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally right in not annulling the assessment made by the income tax officer by his order dated 22-12-1978 ?'2. the dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. we need not go into the factual aspects in detail in the light of the accepted position that the tribunal worked out the variation which was, according to it, less than rs. 1 lakh. since the sine qua non for application of section 144b of the act is a variation of rs. 1 lakh or more, the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.3. as the second question itself suggests, the same is to be answered if answer to question no. 1 is in the negative. as our answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative, we do not think it necessary to answer the second question.the reference stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

At the instance of the assessed, following questions have been referred under section 256(1) (herein after referred to as the Act) 1961 Income Tax Act for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C:

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in adjudicating upon the question that the variation in the income returned by the applicant was not more than Rs. 1 lakh and, accordingly, in holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in setting aside the assessment

2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in not annulling the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer by his order dated 22-12-1978 ?'

2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail in the light of the accepted position that the Tribunal worked out the variation which was, according to it, less than Rs. 1 lakh. Since the sine qua non for application of section 144B of the Act is a variation of Rs. 1 lakh or more, the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.

3. As the second question itself suggests, the same is to be answered if answer to question No. 1 is in the negative. As our answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, we do not think it necessary to answer the second question.

The reference stands disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial