9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Four connected petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62; Validity of the partnership between Shri W. L. Kohli and his son; Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to cancel an order under section 263 of the Act; Whether the order was erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. Analysis: The High Court of Delhi dealt with four connected petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The case revolved around M/s. W. L. Kohli & Co., initially assessed as a registered firm by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax later issued a notice deeming the order prejudicial and erroneous, contending that M/s. W. L. Kohli & Co. was not a genuine partnership but a proprietary business of Shri W. L. Kohli. This led to appeals by both M/s. W. L. Kohli & Co. and Shri W. L. Kohli against the Commissioner's order (para 1-4). The Tribunal examined the case in detail and concluded that the Income-tax Officer's assessment of the firm was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue, thereby ruling that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel the order under section 263 of the Act (para 5-6). The central issue was whether a valid partnership existed between Shri W. L. Kohli and his son, Vijay Kumar Kohli, through a partnership deed dated June 1, 1959. The Tribunal found no legal basis to sustain the Commissioner's order under section 263, emphasizing that all relevant facts had been considered before granting registration to the firm (para 7-8). The Tribunal's decision was based on factual analysis, determining that no legal question of law arose, leading to the refusal of references under section 256(1) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that its decision was fact-based and did not involve the interpretation of legal questions (para 9-10). The High Court rejected the Department's contention that questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order, highlighting that the Tribunal's assessment was factually grounded and not erroneous. The Court emphasized that the existence of a partnership was a factual determination, and since the Tribunal found the partnership genuine, no legal question emerged (para 11-12). Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application, leaving the parties to bear their own costs (para 13).
|
