Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jawit Industrial Corporation - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
head note: income tax reference--question of law--procedural defect. ratio & held : question as to whether the appellate assistant commissioner has erred in entertaining a miscellaneous application of the assessee filed on 7-10-1986, when the original order was passed by the appellate assistant commissioner on 3-2-1981, was a referable question of law. case law analysis : cit v. k. l. bhatia (1980) 182 itr 361 (del) and cit v. suresh kumar (1990) 186 itr 114 (p&h) applied. application : also to current assessment year. a. y. : 1977-78 income tax act 1961 s.256(2) g.s. singhvi & k.s. kumaran, jj. 26th november, 1996 assessment year 1977-78 income-tax act, 1961, s. 256(2) counsel s.s. mahalan, for the petitionernone, for the respondent - orderg.s. singhvi, j.:feeling aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal, arnritsar bench, arnritsar rejecting its application under s. 256(1) of the it act, 1961, the cit, jalandhar has filed this application under s. 256(2) for issuance of a direction to the tribunal to refer the following question of law to the high court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the revenue that the aac has erred in entertaining a miscellaneous application of the assessee filed on 7th oct., 1986, when the original order was passed by the aac on 3rd feb., 19bl?'2. it appears that the assessing authority passed an order of assessment in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78. claim of the assessee for deduction of the amount of purchase tax paid by it was accepted on 3rd feb., 1981 by the aac in the appeal filed by the assessee. however, the assessing authority allowed deduction of rs. 1,720 only. the assessee filed a miscellaneous application dt. 7th oct., 1986 for the correction of the alleged mistake. this application was accepted by the aac on 16th dec., 1986. after having unsuccessfully appealed against the order of the aac the revenue filed an application under s. 256(1) of 1961 act and after rejection of the same, it has filed this petition under s. 256(2).3. after having heard shri mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue and after having gone through the record of this case and also after having perused the decisions in cit vs. y.l. bha lia (1980) 84 ctr (delhi) 152 .. (1980) 182 itr 361 and cl.' vs . suresh kumar .. , we are satisfied that the above mentioned question of law deserves to be called for and answered by this court.4. we, therefore, allow this petition and direct the tribunal to draw a statement of case and refer the aforementioned question of law to this court along with the record of the case.open

Judgment:
ORDER

G.S. SINGHVI, J.:

Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, Arnritsar Bench, Arnritsar rejecting its application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the CIT, Jalandhar has filed this application under s. 256(2) for issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to the High Court :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the Revenue that the AAC has erred in entertaining a miscellaneous application of the assessee filed on 7th Oct., 1986, when the original order was passed by the AAC on 3rd Feb., 19Bl?'

2. It appears that the assessing authority passed an order of assessment in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78. Claim of the assessee for deduction of the amount of purchase tax paid by it was accepted on 3rd Feb., 1981 by the AAC in the appeal filed by the assessee. However, the assessing authority allowed deduction of Rs. 1,720 only. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application dt. 7th Oct., 1986 for the correction of the alleged mistake. This application was accepted by the AAC on 16th Dec., 1986. After having unsuccessfully appealed against the order of the AAC the Revenue filed an application under s. 256(1) of 1961 Act and after rejection of the same, it has filed this petition under s. 256(2).

3. After having heard Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the Revenue and after having gone through the record of this case and also after having perused the decisions in CIT vs. Y.L. Bha lia (1980) 84 CTR (DelHI) 152 .. (1980) 182 ITR 361 and Cl.' vs . Suresh Kumar .. , we are satisfied that the above mentioned question of law deserves to be called for and answered by this Court.

4. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the Tribunal to draw a statement of case and refer the aforementioned question of law to this Court along with the record of the case.

OPEN