I.T.R. N o.109 of 1989 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. N o.109 of 1989 Date of decision: 11.1.2006. M/S Kuldip Singh Nalwa(HUF), Amritsar ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax(Central), Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate for Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the revenue. **** RAJESH BINDAL,J. Following questions of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandgiarh arising out of its order dated 5.5.1987 passed in I.T.A.No.695 of 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76.. “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that once the revised return had been filed omitting any foot note which was given in the original return, the revised return which was filed merely to revise the share income from a firm as a result of revision of return in the case of the firm, had withdrawn that was disclosed in the first return and this being so, the provisions of section 147 (a) were attracted? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances, the foot note appended to the original return was not I.T.R. N o.109 of 1989 -2- *** information in the possession of the income-tax officer and whether the notice u/s 147 (a) was not in consequence of information in possession of the income-tax officer to attract the provisions of section 147(b)?” When the case has been called out for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, we do not consider it appropriate to go into the merits of question of law referred. The reference is thus returned unanswered. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 11 ,2007 (M.M.Kumar) Pka Judge