Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 309 (MP)

Prabhashchandra Jha v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

2005-02-28

A.M.SAPRE, ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a reference made at the instance of assessee by the Tribunal under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in R. A. No. 97 to 111/ Ind. /87 which arises out of W. T. A. Nos. 129 to 133/ind. /87 to answer the following question of law said to arise out of the aforementioned order of the Appellate Tribunal: Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the property inherited as individual was not thrown into the common stock of the family before December 31, 1969, and is taxable as separate property and not as of HUF is against the weight of the evidential material and is, thus, perverse and vitiated and results in levy of tax in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India ? ( 2. ) HEARD Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the assessee and Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Miss V. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the Revenue. ( 3. ) AT the outset, both learned Counsel for the assessee as also for the Revenue brought to our notice a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. P. L. Karuppan Chettiar. , [1992 ]197 ITR646 (SC ), 1993 Supp (1 )SCC580. According to learned Counsel, the question referred to this Court fell for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of P. L. Karuppan Chettiar [1992] 191 ITR 646 and the same was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. ( 4. ) SINCE the question involved in this reference and the one that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in P. L. Karuppan Chettiar [1992] 191 ITR 646 are identical in nature and hence it is not necessary for us to take note of any facts in detail for examining the question which stood answered by the apex court thereby settling the controversy so far as legal debate is concerned. This court as also all the courts in the country including the taxing authorities are required to simply follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in letter and spirit keeping in view the mandate of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India and give effect to it in the case of the assessee as a consequential one. ( 5. ( 5. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the aforesaid and in the light of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of P. L. Karuppan Chettiar [1992] 191 ITR 646, we answer the question referred to us as mentioned above against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue i. e. , the Commissioner of Income-tax. No cost.