Kamalkishore and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - subsequently, on the basis of information gathered during the course of survey conducted under section 133a of the act in the premises of the assessee as well as in the premises of two other firms, iqbal and co.g.g. sohani, actg. c.j.1. the order in this case will also govern the disposal of miscellaneous civil cases nos. 137 and 139, both of 1987.2. these are applications under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').3. the assesses is a partnership firm which was granted registration for the assessment year 1977-78. for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the registration of the assessee was continued and the assessee was assessed under section 143(3) of the act in the status of a registered firm for all these years. subsequently, on the basis of information gathered during the course of survey conducted under section 133a of the act in the premises of the assessee as well as in the premises of two other firms, iqbal and co., unhel, and chetanswaroop omprakash and co., the income-tax officer came to the conclusion that the assessee-firm was not genuine and the income-tax officer, therefore, cancelled the registration/continuation of registration granted to the assessee-firm. aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-firm preferred appeals before the appellate assistant commissioner who allowed these appeals. aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner, the revenue preferred appeals before the tribunal. the tribunal allowed these appeals and setting aside the order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner, directed the appellate assistant commissioner to restore the appeals to his file and to decide them afresh. aggrieved by the order passed by the tribunal, the assessee sought a reference but as the applications filed by the assessee in that behalf were rejected, the assessee has filed these applications.4. having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the following question of law does arise out of the order passed by the tribunal:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal, in view of the ground of appeal taken before it, erred in law in setting aside the order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner whereby the order of the income-tax officer cancelling registration/continuation of registration of the assessee-firm was set aside ?'5. the applications are, therefore, allowed. the tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. in the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.