SATISH KUMAR V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/109/1983

AI Insights

The case involved three connected Income Tax References (ITR-109-1983, ITR-111-1983, ITR-112-1983) concerning the assessees Satish Kumar, Vipin Kumar, and Avnesh Kumar, who were all brothers. The references were made to the High Court by the Income Tax Department of Amritsar, Punjab, seeking judicial intervention on certain tax-related issues. However, the court noted that despite multiple attempts by the Department and the court itself to contact the assessees, including through WhatsApp and postal notices, there was no response from the assessees. The legal counsel for the Revenue submitted that the issues had become academic due to amendments in the law post-2005, which affected the legal standing of the matters in question. Consequently, the court decided to dismiss the references as they served no practical purpose and were unlikely to yield any actionable judicial guidance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763661 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Keywords: Income Tax; Reference; Academic Exercise; Unanswered Communications

Judgement Text

" 101 (3 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT SATISH KUMAR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB VIPIN KUMAR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB AVNESH KUMAR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR Present: None for the Mr. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondent/Income Tax Department. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. This order shall dispose of these connected involved in all the 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue has that the concerned assessee Kumar, who had approached for a reference in spite of all attempts made by the Department of Revenue for contacting the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR-109 Date of Decision: SATISH KUMAR V/s. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB ITR-111 VIPIN KUMAR V/s. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB ITR-112 AVNESH KUMAR V/s. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA None for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate/Amicus Curiae. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondent/Income Tax Department. ***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of these connected involved in all the References is common. Learned counsel for the Revenue has that the concerned assessee/petitioner in ITR , who had approached for a reference of the case in spite of all attempts made by the Department of Revenue for contacting the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109-1983 (O&M) Date of Decision:18.10.2024 ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB …......Respondent(s) 111-1983 (O&M) ..…... Petitioner(s) V/s. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB …......Respondent(s) 112-1983 (O&M) ..…... Petitioner(s) V/s. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB …......Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA JAGMOHAN BANSAL SUDEEPTI SHARMA /Amicus Curiae. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondent/Income Tax Department. This order shall dispose of these connected ITRs as the issue Learned counsel for the Revenue has stated, on instructions, that in ITR-109-1983 namely Satish of the case has not appeared and in spite of all attempts made by the Department of Revenue for contacting the (s) ) …......Respondent(s) (s) …......Respondent(s) as the issue stated, on instructions, that 1983 namely Satish not appeared and in spite of all attempts made by the Department of Revenue for contacting the Suresh Kumar 2024.10.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITR-109-1983 (O&M) ITR-112-1983 (O&M) concerned person, sent through remained unanswered. the petitioner, 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, has stated that even the concerned assesses/ respectively, responded to the communications sent to them. 4. In view of the above, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the Reference be served in examining the issue as a 5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as by the learned amendment has been made become a coparcener in the HUF and salary claimed recovered from the assessee purely academic and 6. Taking into consideration that the appellant References ha and by the Revenue Department, we are satisfied that the concerned persons/appellants no more interested to pursue these 1983 (O&M) , ITR-111-1983 (O&M) and 1983 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 concerned person, he has not cooperated. The subject of reference was also sent through WhatsApp message to said Satish Kumar which too has remained unanswered. Notices were issued by the Registry of this Court to petitioner, the same have also been received back unserved. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, has stated that even the concerned assesses/petitioners in ITR who are the brothers of said responded to the communications sent to them. In view of the above, learned counsel for the Revenue submits References have itself been rendered as otiose and no purpose would be served in examining the issue as a Reference It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as by the learned Amicus Curiae that after the year 2005, since the amendment has been made, all children whether become a coparcener in the HUF and the amount involved is ed is `1,000/- per month. Since, recovered from the assessees/petitioners, the exercise by this Court would be purely academic and would have no purpose to serve Taking into consideration that the appellant have failed to appear in spite of all attempts made by this Court and by the Revenue Department, we are satisfied that the concerned /appellants, i.e. Satish Kumar, Vipin Kumar and Avnesh Kumar no more interested to pursue these references. The subject of reference was also message to said Satish Kumar which too has Notices were issued by the Registry of this Court to been received back unserved. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, has stated that in ITR-111-1983 and ITR-112-1983 Satish Kumar, have also not responded to the communications sent to them. In view of the above, learned counsel for the Revenue submits itself been rendered as otiose and no purpose would Reference by this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue as that after the year 2005, since the , all children whether male or female, would the amount involved is minis cued as . Since, the amount has already been , the exercise by this Court would be to serve. Taking into consideration that the appellants in all the spite of all attempts made by this Court and by the Revenue Department, we are satisfied that the concerned , Vipin Kumar and Avnesh Kumar are . The subject of reference was also message to said Satish Kumar which too has Notices were issued by the Registry of this Court to Learned counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, has stated that 1983 have also not In view of the above, learned counsel for the Revenue submits itself been rendered as otiose and no purpose would It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue as that after the year 2005, since the e, would as the amount has already been , the exercise by this Court would be s in all the spite of all attempts made by this Court and by the Revenue Department, we are satisfied that the concerned are Suresh Kumar 2024.10.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITR-109-1983 (O&M) ITR-112-1983 (O&M) 7. Accordingly, law as referred to the larger 8. All pending applications [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA October 18, 2024 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 1983 (O&M) , ITR-111-1983 (O&M) and 1983 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 Accordingly, we dismiss all the references and the law as referred to the larger Bench, therefore, All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [JAGMOHAN BANSAL [SUDEEPTI SHARMA] JUDGE October 18, 2024 Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : Yes all the references and the question of , therefore, needs not be answered. also stand disposed of accordingly. [JAGMOHAN BANSAL] JUDGE [SUDEEPTI SHARMA] Yes / No Yes / No question of Suresh Kumar 2024.10.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "