| Case ID |
ed8f8710-36d8-4e23-ae0d-358a7477c3fd |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT Case No. 104 of 1976 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stating that the Tribunal's findings on questions of fact were not to be disturbed unless there was no evidence upon which they could reasonably arrive at their conclusions. The court confirmed that the issue regarding the entertainment of fresh evidence by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) was not raised during the Tribunal's proceedings, and thus did not arise from the order. Additionally, the court noted that the Tribunal's affirmation of the AAC's findings regarding the availability of returned goods with the assessee was also a factual matter, and therefore, not subject to review. Consequently, the Tribunal's rejection of the reference application was justified. |
| Summary |
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Baij Nath, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed issues surrounding the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning section 256(2). The case revolved around the treatment of stock hypothecated with a bank and the admission of fresh evidence by the AAC. The court emphasized that findings on factual questions by the Tribunal are conclusive unless proven otherwise. The significance of this case lies in its clarification of procedural standards regarding the admission of fresh evidence during tax assessments, as well as its implications for taxpayers and the revenue department in similar disputes. The court's decision reinforces the importance of following due process in tax proceedings and sets a precedent for future cases involving the interpretation of stock valuations and evidence admissibility in tax assessments. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Rajendra Nath Mittal,
M.M. Punchhi
|
| Lawyers |
Ashok Bhan,
A.K. Mittal,
G.C. Sharma,
Vimal Gandhi,
S.S. Mahajan
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Baij Nath
|
| Citations |
1984 SLD 639 = (1984) 148 ITR 135
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
256(2)
|