The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Sh. Satinder Kumar Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.C. No. 17 of 1993DATE OF DECISION : 28.04.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak .... PETITIONER Versus Sh. Satinder Kumar Jain ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate,for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This petition has been filed by the revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), forasking the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this Court : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law in holding that there is no justificationfor assessing interest amounts in various years in the hands ofthe assessee especially when the payment of enhancedcompensation or quantification of enhanced compensation wasin dispute?” According to the petitioner, the aforesaid question of law is arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 30.10.1991 in ITA No. 5219 (Del)/91 for theassessment year 1976-77, in case of assessee Satinder Kumar Jain. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has takenthe decision on the basis of its earlier decision in ITA No. 5223 (Del) 1990in case of the co-assessee Jainender Kumar Jain for the assessment year1976-77. In that order, by following the decision of the Supreme Court inthe case of C.I.T.v. Hindustan Housing Board and Land DevelopmentTrust Ltd., 161 ITR 524, it was held that proceedings under Section 147 (a)of the Act were bad in law. Counsel for the petitioner, on written instructions from thedepartment, states that against the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 5223(Del) 1990 for the assessment year 1976-77, in case of co-assesseeJainender Kumar Jain, probably no reference was filed and that decision hasbecome final. In view of the aforesaid fact and the law laid down in'Hindustan Housing Boards case (supra) and when decision of the co-assessee Jainender Kumar Jain has attained finality, we are not inclined toask the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question of law to this Court. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE April 28, 2008 ndj ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )JUDGE