COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX vs. VIKRANT CRIMP-ERS

ITR/91/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022416199519 January 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 8, 1988, for Assessment Year (AY) 1986-87. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) believed this order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, initiating proceedings under Section 263. On March 26, 1990, the CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial, directing the AO to add Rs. 2,32,961/- (sales tax benefit) to the total income. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT, by order dated June 8, 1992, held the CIT's order under Section 263 to be without jurisdiction and allowed the assessee's appeal. The revenue sought a reference to the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal was justified in holding that the CIT was not justified in passing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the assessment for AY 1986-87 was a summary assessment under Section 143(1). It relied on CBDT Circular No. RA/86-87/DIT dated August 26, 1987, which directed that no remedial action was necessary in summary cases. The Tribunal concluded that, in view of this circular, the CIT could not have exercised revisional powers under Section 263. The High Court found no material to dislodge these findings and held that the CIT, being bound by the CBDT directions, could not have exercised powers under Section 263 in a summary assessment case. Consequently, the High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. The Court did not enter into the merits of the controversy as the exercise of powers under Section 263 was found to be without jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the CIT, Surat, was not justified to pass the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of the assessee relating to AY 1986-87? Assessee's Contention (as inferred from the Tribunal's decision): The assessment for AY 1986-87 was a summary assessment. As per CBDT Circular No. RA/86-87/DIT dated August 26, 1987, no remedial action is necessary in summary cases. Therefore, the CIT could not have exercised revisional powers under Section 263. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned standing counsel, argued that the CIT was justified in passing the order under Section 263. However, the judgment does not detail specific arguments beyond this general assertion. The revenue relied on the CIT's finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 143(1),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/91/1995 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 91 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 VIKRANT CRIMPERS - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR TANVISH U BHATT for Applicant NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================================== CORAM :  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 09/01/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)

ITR/91/1995 2/5 JUDGMENT 1

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 →