ITC No. 1 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income Tax Case No. 1 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ... Petitioner v. Shri N. K. Dhir, HUF, Ludhiana (deceased) through LRs ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (for short, `CIT') is in appeal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act') against the order dated 26.6.1990, whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal') dismissed the petition under Section 256(1) of the Act for referring the following question of law, for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in cancelling the CIT's order dated 26.3.1987 under Section 263 when amendment to Section 263 was made w.e.f. 1.10.1984.” After the sole respondent in the petition expired, his LRs were brought on record on 4.3.2009. As per latest office report, service of respondents No. 1 and 3 could not be effected because of incomplete address. Respondent No. 2 is reported to have died. Respondent No. 4 was out of station, whereas respondent No. 5 is stated to be residing in Australia. Further a perusal of the order passed by this court on 6.5.2008 shows that counsel for the revenue stated that for the assessment year 1984-85, the petition filed by it bearing No. ITC 22 of 1991, was dismissed on 26.5.2006. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it was a composite order for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85. ITC ITC No. 1 of 2009 [ 2] No. 22 of 1991 was dismissed on a statement of the counsel for the Revenue that the issue sought to be raised was covered against the Revenue by a judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mrs. Manjula Sood, (1997) 227 ITR 873. Once the petition filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1984-85 has been dismissed, there is no reason for directing the Tribunal to refer the question of law in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge August 27, 2010 mk