Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, Chandigarh v. Jasbir Singh And Others
High Court
01 Feb 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, Chandigarh v. Jasbir Singh And Others
Date of order
01 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, Chandigarh v. Jasbir Singh And Others, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?2.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
ITA No.458 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
ITA No.458 of 2009Date of decision 1.2.2010
Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh... Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh and others... Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal has been filed against order dated 20.2.2009passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench B (forbrevity 'the Tribunal') passed in ITA No.1020/Chandi/2008 in respect of theassessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer as well as theCommissioner of Income Tax (A) have assessed the purchases of fish worthRs. 43,12,297/- being contract payment and has invoked the provisions ofSection 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for brevity 'the Act'). TheTribunal has, however recorded a firm finding of fact that no contractor wasinvolved and an affidavit by a partner of the assessee- firm was also filed.There is nothing to the contrary to prove the statement made on affidavitto be false. The Tribunal has, however, opined that the Assessing Officerhas proceeded on the assumption that a contractor was engaged and itcannot take the shape of evidence. It has rightly relied upon the judgementof Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of CITv. Daulat Ram
ITA No.458 of 2009
Rawat Mal (1973) 87 ITR 349. Once the factual basis necessary forinvoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is missing then it isnot possible to opine that a substantive question of law within the meaningof Section 260A of the Act would arise for determination. The appeal isbased on findings of fact and does not deserve admission. Accordingly, theappeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar) Judge
1.2.2010okg
(Rakesh Kumar Jain)Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.