| Case ID |
4304d53b-7892-42b7-9a4c-9799be905476 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 1983 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the omission of the Tribunal to consider the evidence of the scribe of the will and the attesting witness was not a material omission that would give rise to a question of law. The main issue was whether the pawning business was carried on by J, which the Tribunal found it was not due to her lack of knowledge about the details of the business. Therefore, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Allahabad High Court examined the matter of pawning business ownership following a search and seizure operation. The assessee firm claimed that the pawning business belonged to J, the wife of one of its partners, who stated she started the business with funds received under a will. The court evaluated whether the Tribunal's failure to consider evidence regarding the will and its witnesses constituted a material omission. Ultimately, it was determined that the evidence presented did not support the claim that the business was hers, resulting in the dismissal of the application. This case highlights the importance of substantiating claims with credible evidence in tax-related disputes. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
N.D. OJHA,
OM PRAKASH
|
| Lawyers |
S.P. Gupta,
Mankandey Katju
|
| Petitioners |
Malti Prasad Ram Prasad
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1986 SLD 1364 = (1986) 157 ITR 601
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
256,
69,
69A
|