ITR 83 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.83 of 1990 Date of decision 4.4.2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .. Applicant Versus M/s Kuldip Industrial Corporation, Chandigarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL PRESENT: Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the revenue. M.M.Kumar, J. This Court while deciding ITC Nos. 88 and 89 of 1986 on 26.9.1988 ( CIT Patiala v. M/s Kuldip Industrial Corporation Chandigarh) had issued directions under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') revenue to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the CIT (Appeals) could under Section 250(4) of the IT Act,1961 admit without giving an opportunity to the ITO to rebut the same, as required under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules, 1962; ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 inserted by the Income Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 1973 w.e.f. 1.4.1973, was not applicable ITR 83 of 1990 2 to the assessment year 1972-73 ? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO was given reasonable opportunity to examine/ rebut the evidence in the form of a death certificate of Smt. Drshana Devi.? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the finding of the CIT (Appeals) regarding genuineness of the firm was not questioned before the Appellate Tribunal; v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Smt. Darshna Devi could not be said to be the same person as Smt. Darshna Gupta of Ambala? vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, in holding that the said Smt. Darshna Devi whose death certificate was relied upon by the assessee was same who was a partner of the assessee firm for the assessment year 1972-73; and vi)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that a genuine firm was in existence for assessment year 1972-73?” Questions similar to one as are raised above, were considered by this Court in assessee's own case in ITR No. 77 of 1990 decided by a separate order passed today and have been answered against the revenue. ITR 83 of 1990 3 For the reasons recorded in ITR 77 No. of 1990, the questions referred are answered also decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajesh Bindal) 4.4.2007 Judge okg