The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S Jalota Family Trust, Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 19 of 2011 Decided on : 16.02.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Versus M/s Jalota Family Trust, Ludhiana . . . Petitioner . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The present reference at the instance of the revenue has been filedfor the Assessment Year 1983-84, to seek opinion of this Court on thefollowing question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theTribunal was correct in annulling the assessment for theassessment year 1983-84?” 2.Learned counsel for the revenue very fairly submitted that the perusal of the case shows that the Assessing Officer made an assessment ontotal income of ` 4,46,158/-, allocated amongst the beneficiaries, assessing theTrust on 'nil' income u/s 143(3) read with Sections 160, 161 and 164 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated 19.9.1986. 3.On the basis of the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in ITR No. 213 of 1997, titled as 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I Vs. M/s Sunny Sounds P. Ltd., Mumbai', decided on 8[th] January, 2016, wherein, it has been held that the Circular No. 21/2015, dated10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi is also applicable on the prayer that in view of the aforesaid circular dated 10[th] December, 2015, as thetax effect involved in the present case is less than the monetary limit prescribedtherein, the present reference may be dismissed as withdrawn and be returnedunanswered. However, it was submitted that liberty be granted to the revenueto file an application for revival of the reference in case something survivestherein. 4.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 5.Consequently, reference is returned unanswered. However, thisshall not mean any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversyinvolved herein. At the same time, the question of law has been left open to beadjudicated in an appropriate case as and when occasion arises. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 16, 2016J.Ram (RAJ RAHUL GARG) JUDGE