COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BARODA CHEMISTS PVT.LTD.

ITR/128/1996HC GujaratGJHC24021808199602 November 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.GARG4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Baroda Chemists Pvt. Ltd., filed returns for Assessment Years 1979-80 to 1986-87 under an Amnesty Scheme, which the Assessing Officer accepted. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) opined that these orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, suggesting amounts credited to books should be taxed in the year of credit, as they were from unexplained sources. The CIT directed assessments to be treated as protective. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the CIT's Section 263 orders for Assessment Years 1979-80 to 1985-86. The ITAT noted the CIT did not initiate action for AY 1986-87. It also noted that an addition of Rs. 5,59,000 in AY 1988-89, pursuant to a Section 263 order, was set aside by the CIT (Appeals). The ITAT concluded that the assessment orders under challenge were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question referred was essentially a challenge to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had held that the returns filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years were voluntary and constituted a true disclosure of income. The High Court found that if the Tribunal had made such a finding of fact, it could not be challenged simply on the ground that the assessee was unable to give particulars of the income. Therefore, the High Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal was right and justified in holding in favour of the assessee. The reference was answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was that the reference stands disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in stating that the returns filed by the assessee in the impugned assessment years were voluntary and a true disclosure of income, when the assessee was unable to give particulars of the income? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's findings, which the High Court upheld, suggest the assessee argued that the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue and that the returns constituted a voluntary and true disclosure. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, contended that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT argued that amounts credited to the books should have been considered in the year of credit, and since the sources were unexplained, the entire amount should have been added in the year of credit, with the assessments being treated as protective.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/128/1996 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 128 OF 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s)

Versus BARODA CHEMISTS PVT.LTD. - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MSHRI MANISH R. BHATT for Applicant(s). NONE for Opponent(s) though Office Report shows that it is served. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 02/11/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →