In D.b. Income Tax Reference v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jaipur, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: Anuroop Singhi for the Revenue. ***** BY THE COURT:- This Reference has been made by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instanceof the Assessee under Section 256(1)/256(2) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to theassessment year 1980-81 seeking opinion ofthis Court on the following questions...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR.
O R D E R
D.B. INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.18/1989.M/s.Khetsidas Sadasukh Dugar
Vs.
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur.
Date of Order:- February 17, 2009.
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF SHRI R.C. GANDHIHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
None present for the Assessee.Mr. Anuroop Singhi for the Revenue.
*****
BY THE COURT:-
This Reference has been made by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instanceof the Assessee under Section 256(1)/256(2) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to theassessment year 1980-81 seeking opinion ofthis Court on the following questions of law:-
“1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalwas right in law in directing for a freshenquiry in the nature of crossexamination, loose documents Exbt. 'EE'which were never produced etc.?
anil
2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalwas right in law in restoring the matterback to the file of the CIT(A) for freshadjudication?”
2)Heard learned counsel for the Revenue.3)The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal hasremanded the matter to the Income-taxCommissioner for disposal and it appears thatremand order might have been considered anddisposed of by the Income-tax Commissioner. Wealso find that counsel for the Assessee is notcoming forward to press and argue theReference as he has lost his interest.
Therefore, the Reference is sent backun-answered.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (R.C. GANDHI),Actg.CJ.
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.