ZAVERCHAND GAEKWAD LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (4)

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/866/2009HC GujaratGJHC24040924200914 September 2022Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in this Tax Appeal, held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal, concerning the invocation of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl., reported in 367 ITR 238. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, with the substantial question of law being answered in favour of the assessee. The reasoning is that the co-ordinate bench's decision in Gauranginiben's case, which addressed a similar substantial question of law regarding Section 55A, was binding. No costs were awarded. The pending civil application was consigned to record.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Tax Appeal filed by Zaverchand Gaekwad Limited against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4). The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core issue revolves around the Assessing Officer's (AO) justification in invoking Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to refer the property's fair market value as of April 1, 1981, to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that the ITAT's decision is under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for ascertaining the Fair Market Value of the property as on 01.04.1981? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, the AO's action of invoking Section 55A implies the revenue's position was that such invocation was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 55A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/866/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 866 of 2009 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 866 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI ============================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ============================================= ZAVERCHAND GAEKWAD LIMITED Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (4) ============================================= Appearance: MR BANDISH SOPARKAR for MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 14/09/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

1.

In this appeal following substantial question of law has C/TAXAP/866/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2022 been raised :- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for ascertaining the Fair Market Value of the property as on 01.04.1981?”

2.

The co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl., reported in 367 ITR 238 has answered the substantial question of law framed in the instant appeal, namely in relation to the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Since, substantial question of law framed in this appeal, stands fairly covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of Apex Court in Gauranginiben’s case referred to supra, this appeal is allowed by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. No orders as to costs. Pending application stands consigned to record as it would not survive for consideration. (ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni

More judgments on Section 55A

All 409 judgments and leading authorities on Section 55A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →