M/S Ghuna Ram Mohan Lal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala And Another

Civil Writ Petition No.155 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.155 of 1999 Date of Order: 16.07.2013. M/s Ghuna Ram Mohan Lal ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocatefor the petitioner. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate,for the Income Tax. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorarisetting aside order dated 27.03.1997 (Annexure P-4), passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, under Section 264 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'). Counsel for the petitioner gives up all other pleas excepta plea that the petitioner is entitled to credit of Rs.4,20,000/- for theyear 1983-84, as this amount was surrendered by the petitionerunder the Amnesty Scheme of 1985. The Income Tax authoritieshave refused to give credit for the years 1983-84, thereby committing petitioner in M/s Ghuna Ram and Sons, New Grain Market, Patialav Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another(Civil WritPetition No.163 of 1999, decided on 09.01.2012). Counsel for the revenue is unable to address anymeaningful argument to distinguish the judgment or in support oforder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafterreferred to as 'the CIT'), under Section 264 of the 1961 Act.We have heard counsel for the parties, perused thepleadings, the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding thatthe Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, was not justified inrejecting the petitioner's prayer. The controversy in the presentpetition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by thejudgment inM/s Ghuna Ram and Sons, New Grain Market, Patiala(supra). A relevant extract from the aforementioned judgment readsas follows:- “After giving thoughtful consideration to therespective submissions, we are of the view thatrespondent No.1 was not justified in rejecting theprayer. It was not disputed that in the proceedingsrelating to assessment year 1982-83 wherein theassessee had claimed Amnesty scheme relating toassessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 wasavailable in its books of account. The said amountwas also held to be available with the petitionerrelating to the assessment year 1984-85. It waspointed out that in Income Tax Case No.35 of 1999 Civil Writ Petition No.155 of 1999 relating to assessment year 1984-85, prayer of therevenue seeking directions to the Tribunal to referquestion of law claimed by it was declined by thisCourt. As a necessary corollary, amount ofRs.5,00,000/- had been held available for theassessment year 1984-85. The CIT, however, hadfailed to examine the matter in the aforesaidbackground. In such a situation, the order passedby the CIT cannot be sustained. The same is setaside and the matter is remanded to respondentNo.1 for passing a fresh order in accordance withlaw.” In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writpetition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified byholding that the appellant shall be entitled to credit of Rs.4,20,000/-in the year 1983-84. The matter is remanded to respondent no.1 forpassing a fresh order, in accordance with law. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE July 16, 2013nt (DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) JUDGE