Ghuna Ram Mohan Lal V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another

CWP/155/1999

AI Insights

In this case, M/s Ghuna Ram Mohan Lal filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, challenging the refusal to grant credit for an amount of Rs.4,20,000 for the assessment year 1983-84. This amount was surrendered under the Amnesty Scheme of 1985. The petitioner relied on a precedent set in a similar case, M/s Ghuna Ram and Sons, where the court had ruled in favor of the petitioner. The High Court found that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim and thus modified the order, granting the credit and remanding the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822158 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Ghuna Ram and Sons, New Grain Market, Patiala v Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another (Civil Writ Petition No.163 of 1999, decided on 09.01.2012)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAVITA SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: Amnesty Scheme; Credit; Jurisdiction error; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 264

Judgement Text

" Civil Writ Petition No.155 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.155 of 1999 Date of Order: 16.07.2013. M/s Ghuna Ram Mohan Lal ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the Income Tax. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari setting aside order dated 27.03.1997 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'). Counsel for the petitioner gives up all other pleas except a plea that the petitioner is entitled to credit of Rs.4,20,000/- for the year 1983-84, as this amount was surrendered by the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme of 1985. The Income Tax authorities have refused to give credit for the years 1983-84, thereby committing an error of jurisdiction that may be rectified. It is further submitted that a similar controversy has been answered in favour of the Kumar Naresh N 2013.07.22 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.155 of 1999 -2- petitioner in M/s Ghuna Ram and Sons, New Grain Market, Patiala v Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another (Civil Writ Petition No.163 of 1999, decided on 09.01.2012). Counsel for the revenue is unable to address any meaningful argument to distinguish the judgment or in support of order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT'), under Section 264 of the 1961 Act. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's prayer. The controversy in the present petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment in M/s Ghuna Ram and Sons, New Grain Market, Patiala (supra). A relevant extract from the aforementioned judgment reads as follows:- “After giving thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions, we are of the view that respondent No.1 was not justified in rejecting the prayer. It was not disputed that in the proceedings relating to assessment year 1982-83 wherein the assessee had claimed Amnesty scheme relating to assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 was available in its books of account. The said amount was also held to be available with the petitioner relating to the assessment year 1984-85. It was pointed out that in Income Tax Case No.35 of 1999 Kumar Naresh N 2013.07.22 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.155 of 1999 -3- relating to assessment year 1984-85, prayer of the revenue seeking directions to the Tribunal to refer question of law claimed by it was declined by this Court. As a necessary corollary, amount of Rs.5,00,000/- had been held available for the assessment year 1984-85. The CIT, however, had failed to examine the matter in the aforesaid background. In such a situation, the order passed by the CIT cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.” In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified by holding that the appellant shall be entitled to credit of Rs.4,20,000/- in the year 1983-84. The matter is remanded to respondent no.1 for passing a fresh order, in accordance with law. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE July 16, 2013 (DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) nt JUDGE Kumar Naresh N 2013.07.22 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "