M/S Sethi Rice Mills, Kotkapura v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala
High Court
27 Oct 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S Sethi Rice Mills, Kotkapura v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala
Date of order
27 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
1990-91
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In M/S Sethi Rice Mills, Kotkapura v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 27, 2009 prem (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE Note:- Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .....Yes/No
Decision: Reference is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
ITR No. 164 of 1999 (O&M)Date of decision: October 27, 2009
M/s Sethi Rice Mills, Kotkapura
...Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: None for the assessee.Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the revenue.
ORDER
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, has referred thefollowing questions of law for opinion of this Court, at the instance of theassessee, arising out of its order dated 29.7.1998 in ITA No. 138 (ASR)/1992 for the assessment year 1990-91:-
“1. Whether as per peculiar facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is right in deciding the appeal on merit on theexparte orders passed by the CIT (A) on merit ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the cases,low yield of finished goods or unexplained highshortage/wastage is a valid ground for invoking section 145and making suitable estimate of income on account of low yieldand unexplained shortage ?”
In view of the order passed today in ITR 165 of 1999 (M/sKanwal Rice Mills Kotkapura Versus The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Patiala), the questions referred are answered against the assessee andin favour of the revenue.
Reference is disposed of accordingly.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
October 27, 2009 prem
(GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE
Note:- Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .....Yes/No
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.