Revenue referred questions under Section 256 Income Tax Act. Bench found earlier reference R.C.No.59 of 1992 settled the law. Bench held adjudication order by Tribunal correct and questions unnecessary. Disposed reference without answering questions.
Reference disposed with no order as to costs; no questions answered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
REFERENCE CASE No.51 of 1999
JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,,J)
This reference, under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act, is made, at the instance of the Revenue for framing the following questions:
1) Whether on the facts and in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in dismissing the departmental appeal, following its order reported in 37 ITD Page-1, which was not an order passed by the ITAT as held by the A.P. High Court in ITC No.92 of 1991 dated 28.08.1992?
2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.41,60,031/made by the Assessing Officer?
Heard the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Income Tax, and the learned counsel for the respondent.
From a perusal of the order of reference, it is evident that similar questions arose in R.A.Nos.234 and 235 of 1991. The present reference is in respect of R.A.No.203 of 1996. R.C.No.59 of 1992 was in respect of R.A.Nos.234 and 235 of 1991. Through a detailed judgment, dated 04.03.2003, a Division Bench of this Court answered R.C.No.59 of 1992, holding that the view
taken by the Tribunal in its adjudicatory order was correct, and that the reference was unnecessary.
Following the same, we also express the view that the order of adjudication passed by the Tribunal is correct in all respects and the questions referred to this Court do not warrant any answer. We adopt the reasons furnished in the judgment in R.C.No.59 of 1992 for this case also.
The Reference Case is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in the reference case shall stand disposed of.
_____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
____________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
11th June, 2014 cbs
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
R.C.No.51 of 1999
11th June, 2014
cbs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ITAT was correct in dismissing the departmental appeal.
Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.41,60,031 made by the Assessing Officer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.C.No.59 of 1992Referred¶9
1 provisions across 1 enactments
L. Narasimha Reddy
T. Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
