I. T. R. No. 61 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. R. No. 61 of 1990 Date of Decision : December 10, 2008. M/s Sham Lal Sajdeh (HUF), Amritsar .... Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Naveender P. K. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Revenue. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. The questions of law, which have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arising out of its order dated 24.01.1981 in ITA No. 1193 (ASR)/1979 in respect of assessment year 1974-75 are as follows :- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the issue of notice under section 147 (1) (b) is valid ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the I. T. R. No. 61 of 1990 2 circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the issue of notice under section 147 (1) (b) to disallow the sum of Rs.20,000/- paid by the Joint Hindu Family to Shri Sham Lal Sajdeh, Individual, is valid when the said amount has been allowed by the Tribunal in the said assessment year 1974-75 by their order dated 24-11-1976 and the said decision has been accepted by the Department ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in not directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide grounds Nos. 6 and 7 of the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wherein it was contended that the salary of Rs.20,000/- paid to Shri Sham Lal Sajdeh, Individual, for the services rendered to the Joint Hindu Family, is allowable, when the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the issue of notice under section 147 (1) (b) was not valid and did not feel the I. T. R. No. 61 of 1990 3 necessity of deciding the grounds Nos.5, 6 and 7 ?” 2. In the original order of assessment, the assessee was allowed deduction in respect of salary paid to karta of the HUF. On the basis of order for the next year, the assessment was re-opened on the ground that the said claim was wrongly allowed. The CIT (A) set aside the disallowance on the ground that re-assessment was not justified. The Tribunal, however, restored the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Even though learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the matter is covered against the assessee, by a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and another v. Income Tax Officer and another, (S.C.) [1993] 203 ITR 456, but in absence of assessee, we do not consider it appropriate to answer the reference. 4. The reference is returned unanswered. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 10, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE