Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. Narinder Kumar

ITR No.1 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITR No.1 of 2012Date of Decision: 30.10.2014 Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Ludhiana ..Appellant versus Narinder Kumar C/o M/s Jagan Nath Ram Sahai ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the revenue has brought to our notice thatITC No.134 of 1994, “Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)Ludhiana versus Sh.Narinder Kumar C/o M/s Jagan Nath Ram Sahaifiled under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seekingreference of two questions of law was dismissed on 26.7.2004 butthe Tribunal inadvertently construed this order as a direction to referthese questions of law to the High Court. We have heard counsel for the revenue and perused the record. A perusal of order dated 26.7.2004 passed in ITC No.134of 1994 “Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)Ludhiana versusSh.Narinder Kumar C/o M/s Jagan Nath Ram Sahai”reveals that the ITR No.1 of 2012 2 revenue sought reference of the following questions:- “ i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal's order was vitiated by non-consideration or relevant facts and by taking into accountthe irrelevant facts and is therefore perverse?”the case, the Tribunal's order was vitiated by non-consideration or relevant facts and by taking into accountthe irrelevant facts and is therefore perverse?” ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law indeleting the addition made by the assessing officertowards unexplained investment in the purchase ofshares worked out by the assessing officer on the basisof proved facts/collateral evidence in the possession ofthe Department?”the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law indeleting the addition made by the assessing officertowards unexplained investment in the purchase ofshares worked out by the assessing officer on the basisof proved facts/collateral evidence in the possession ofthe Department?” A Division Bench passed the following order on 26.7.2004”- “Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that thematter is fully covered by the order of this Court in ITCNo.60 of 1991 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Ludhiana v. Dharam Pal) decided on 19.11.1998. In view of the above, this petition is also dismissed.” A perusal of this order reveals that ITC No.134 of 1994 was dismissed as questions of law were covered against therevenue by order dated 19.11.1998, passed in ITC No.60 of 1991(Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Dharam Pal). The ITAT has, however, forwarded a reference by misreadingorder dated 26.7.2004 passed in ITC No.134 of 1994 “Commissionerof Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana versus Sh.Narinder Kumar C/o M/s ITR No.1 of 2012 3 ”Jagan Nath Ram Sahai.Consequently, we decline the reference asnot maintainable. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE 30.10.2014VK ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE