Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Jullundur Vs. Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 113 of 1977
Reported in[1978]114ITR410(P& H)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Jullundur
RespondentEss Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments.....the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the commission paid to the sole selling agent was not wholly justified and yet it did not impose penalty on the assessee on the ground that there was no wilful concealment of income. should be regarded a wilful or not prima facie raises a question of law. we accordingly allow this petition and direct the tribunal to state the case after framing the question of law, after hearing the parties, for our decision. the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the tribunal on december 26, 1977. no costs.
Judgment:

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the commission paid to the sole selling agent was not wholly justified and yet it did not impose penalty on the assessee on the ground that there was no wilful concealment of income. should be regarded a wilful or not prima facie raises a question of law. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the Tribunal to state the case after framing the question of law, after hearing the parties, for our decision. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on December 26, 1977. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //