Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: TAJ PRINTERS
Court Name: Allahabad High Court Judge(s): R. K. Gulati, R. M. Sahai Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs TAJ PRINTERS Case No.: Income-tax Reference No. 244 of 1988 Date of Judgment:1991-02-01 Reported As: 1991 PTD 101 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT R.M. SAHAI, J.--This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The following questions of law have been raised: "(1) Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invoked by the Commissioner of Income-tax merely on suspicion, law, he was not empowered to invoke section 263 in this case, by placing reliance on the decision of the Allababad High Court in the case of J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326, which does not apply to the facts of the present case, because of wide divergence of facts between that case and this case? (2) Whether, in law and the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of income=tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" From the very frame of the question, it is clear that the Tribunal has based its opinion on decisions given by this Court. Since the question of law stands already decided by this Court, no question of law can be said to arise and, on facts, it-has been found that the basic requirement for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 was missing as the Commissioner did not either set out the points for inquiry nor did he, record any reason or refer to any material as to how the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The application for directing the Tribunal, therefore, to submit a statement of case on the proposed questions of law is rejected.