IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH W.T.A. No. 7 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: January 7, 2009 Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Karnal …Appellant Versus Rajeshwar Nath …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Krishan Mehta, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, for the revenue. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate, for the assessee (in WTA Nos. 7 of 2000 & 35 of 2002) 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of W.T.A. Nos. 7 of 2000, 6, 7, 8 & 35 of 2002 and W.T.R. Nos. 17, 18, 20 & 24 of 1997 because the W.T.A. No. 7 of 2002 tax effect involved in these appeals and references monetarily speaking is diminutive. 2. A similar controversy came up for our consideration in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Satinder Kumar Leekha (W.T.A. No. 2 of 2000, decided on 6.1.2009) and connected appeals and references. After following the view taken by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra, (2001) 252 ITR 76, we preferred to refrain from interfering in the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeals and references without answering the question of law. 3. In view of above, these appeals and references are also dismissed without answering the question of law, in terms of our order dated 6.1.2009, passed in W.T.A. No. 2 of 2000 (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 7, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2