IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH W.T.A. No. 5 of 2000 DATE OF DECISION: January 12, 2009 Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) Ludhiana …Appellant Versus Shammi Bansal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate for the revenue. 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. The tax effect involved in this appeal monetarily speaking is diminutive. 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 W.T.A. No. 5 of 2000 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. In view of above, this appeal is 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 12, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2