Guwahati Court November 1991 Judgments

Arun Singhvi Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.1. In a summary proceedings in C.R. Case No. 280/89, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tezpur convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 30 days. In addition, the learned Magistrate passed order confiscating the seized articles belonging to the petitioner. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as disclosed from the record is that the petitioner was found selling ready-made garments (pants) in packets without mentioning the size of the pants and without showing name of the manufacturer and inserting the price of the pieces of the garment by the petitioner himself. After the petitioner was produced before him, the learned Magistrate asked the petitioner whether it was a fact that he was found selling the articles in packets without the name of the manufacturer and by fixing the price by himself. The petitioner answered in the affirmative. On the basis of admission, learned Mag...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joga Maya Chetri and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S.N. Phukan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.6.1983 passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 7 of 1980.3. The accident took place on 21.10.79 at 10.10 P.M. Near the Military Hospital, Shillong, on the Shillong Cherra Road. The Taxi bearing registration No. MLS-4335 belonging to opposite party No. 1 came in high speed and knocked down one person and after that knocked down the claimant. Subsequently the claimant-petitioner the and his legal heirs have been substituted. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- to be paid by the New India Assurance Company. Hence, this present appeal by the Company.3. We have heard Mr. H. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel for the claimant-Respondent4. Only the point urged by Mr. H. Ahmed learned Counsel for the appellant before us is that the Insurance Policy was not proved. In fact the learned Counsel has tr...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Noorbari Tea Co. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1992)43ITD81(Gau.)

1. The appeal is by the revenue and it is marked as time barred by 612 days. It is stated by the learned Departmental Representative that in fact there was no delay in filing the case as within the limitation period application for certified copy of the order appealed against, was made on 17-3-1989. But so far the learned CIT(Appeals) was not furnished copy of such order. The appeal was filed on 23-11-1990. It is submitted therefore, that the appeal memorandum filed by the revenue enclosing copy of the order appealed against, as attested to be true copy by the Assessing Officer, was made as certified copy has not been received and in fact time is still available for filing the appeal still such certified copy would be received. It is submitted, therefore, that the appeal may be admitted and disposed of on merits.2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee resist the submission made on behalf of the revenue. It is stated that the limitation matter will have to be conside...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.C. Bezbarua

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question of law has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act has to be carried forward ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee submitted his return of income on February 19, 1979. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on a net loss of Rs. 35,380. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not allow the loss to be carried forward on the ground that the return was not filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was rejected. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Noorbari Tea Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

EGBERT SINGH, A. M. :The appeal is by the Revenue and it is marked as time barred by 612 days. It is stated by the learned Departmental Representative that in fact there was no delay in filing the case as within the limitation period application for certified copy of the order appealed against, was made on 17th March, 1989. But so far the learned CIT(A) was not furnished copy of such order. The appeal was filed on 23rd Nov., 1990. It is submitted, therefore, that the appeal memorandum filed by the Revenue enclosing copy of the order appealed against, as attested to be true copy by the Assessing Officer, was made as certified copy has not been received and in fact time is still available for filing the appeal till such certified copy would be received. It is submitted, therefore, that the appeal may be admitted and disposed of on merits.2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee resists the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. It is stated that the limitation matte...

Shri Ratan Kumar Sarawgi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution against the respondents for non-supply of tender documents to the petitioner. 2. This petition was filed in the year 1989 and although an interim order was passed on 21-11-89, it was vacated on 29-11-89. Subsequently, on 20-2-91, a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to supply tender papers to the petitioner which has not yet been done and against this order a petition for modification was filed on 11-9-91 which has not yet been disposed of. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : The petitioner is the proprietor of the firm known as M/s. Galaxy Construction with branch office at Shillong. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 floated tender notices in respect of 16-items, but the tender papers were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of repeated request. Hence, the present petition. 4. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents various pleas have been ...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ka Drostimon Jana

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner, the following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act'), for our opinion : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no assessment could be validly made on the assessee, Ka Drostimon Jana, in the status of individual under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 2. Heard Mr. D. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Revenue. Also heard Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the assessee. 3. Mr. Lahiri submits that the assessee is the youngest daughter of the Khasi family and is the 'Ka Khaddu'. Khasis are a matrilineal society. The properties in question are not the individual properties of the assessee, but they belong to a clan and the assessee is only a custodian as 'Ka Khaddu'. Under the circumstances, Mr. Lahiri su...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi Singh

Court: Guwahati

S.N. Phukan, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act' on the prayer of the Revenue. The following question has been referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deciding that a step-child does not come within the purview of Section 64(1)(iii) when Section 2(15A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, clearly defined 'child' in relation to an individual as including a step-child and an adopted child of that individual ' 2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80, The assessee was a partner of a firm in which her minor step-daughter, namely, the daughter of her husband through some other wife, was admitted to the benefits of the said firm. The Income-tax Officer included the minor's share in the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ordered that the said share could not be included because Sec...