Shri Adarsh Kumar Jain v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.129 of 1999Date of decision: 9.9.2010 Shri Adarsh Kumar Jain. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Applicant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-None for the applicant. Ms. Urvashi Dhuga, Standing Counselfor the revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Following questions of law have been referred foropinion of this Court under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short, “the Act”), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh arising out of its order dated 25.3.1998 in I.T.A.No.960/Chandi/94 in respect of the assessment year 1993-94:- (i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the authorities had erred in law while notallowing rebate u/s 88 of the IT Act in-respect ofdeposits in PPF while interpreting words ofsection 88(2) of the IT Act, 1961 “out of hisincome chargeable to tax” stating the saiddeposit has to be linked and identified with hiscase, the authorities had erred in law while notallowing rebate u/s 88 of the IT Act in-respect ofdeposits in PPF while interpreting words ofsection 88(2) of the IT Act, 1961 “out of hisincome chargeable to tax” stating the saiddeposit has to be linked and identified with his income of the previous year alone and therebate could not be allowed if the deposit ismade from other monies available with theassessee in his account by receipt of borrowingetc. even if the assessee had sufficient incomechargeable to tax sufficient to meet the deposit.”(ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the authorities erred in law in interpretingthe CBDT circular No.3P dated 11.10.1965clarifying the expression “out of his incomechargeable to tax” by ignoring the materialportion of explanation stating that it does notimply that assessee is required to link or identifythe deposit/payments specifically with the fundsrepresenting his income chargeable to tax andrelying only on a part there of that the benefitcannot be availed of in cases where it is clearthat payments cannot be attributed directly orindirectly to the assessee’s income chargeableto tax.” (iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the authorities had misdirectedthemselves in ignoring the material fact that theassessee had income of Rs.76100/- chargeableto tax which was sufficient to meet theinvestment/deposit of Rs.49000/- in PPF bydisallowing the rebate because the deposit wasmade form his bank account in which he hadreceived borrowed monies.” 2. It appears that the matter is covered against theassessee by judgments of Kerala High Court inCITv. Abraham George[2000] 242 ITR 171 and Orissa High Court inCITv. Dr.Usharani Panda [1995] 212 ITR 119. However, since noneappears for the assessee, we do not consider it appropriate toanswer the reference on merits. The same is returnedunanswered. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 09, 2010ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE