COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS,

ITR/128/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022453199510 February 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The case involves Income Tax Reference No. 128 of 1995 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax, and the respondent is Arvind Jewellers. The assessment year in question is 1983-84. The core issue is whether the assessee firm was entitled to renewal of registration. It is a common ground that the facts for this assessment year are identical to those in Assessment Year 1981-82, for which the Tribunal had previously passed an order. The Tribunal's order for the current year followed its earlier order for 1981-82 without independent reasoning. The earlier order for 1981-82 was challenged before the High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 173 of 1989.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in directing the ITO to grant registration to the assessee firm for Assessment Year 1983-84. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Tribunal had followed its own order for Assessment Year 1981-82. This earlier order of the Tribunal for 1981-82 had been carried before the High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 173 of 1989, which was answered in favour of the assessee by an order dated 6/7/2005. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the High Court's judgment dated 6/7/2005 in Income Tax Reference No. 173 of 1989, the question referred was answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to grant registration to the assessee firm for Assessment Year 1983-84? (Question of law and fact, concerning the grant of registration). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, by implication, the assessee would have supported the Tribunal's decision to grant registration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court. However, the reference itself indicates the revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/128/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 128 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI =================================================== 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 ARVIND JEWELLERS, - Respondent(s) ==================================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RK PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, ==================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 10/02/2006

ITR/128/1995 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1 The following question h

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(2)

All 149 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →