COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL

ITR/58/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022383199508 December 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., is a cooperative society. For Assessment Year 1982-83, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.11,96,005/- from sugarcane purchases, treating it as a non-refundable deposit from members at Rs.10 per tonne, deeming it a device to inflate purchase price. The Commissioner (Appeals) held this amount to be a trading receipt taxable in the hands of the assessee, disallowing any deduction. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the disallowance, relying on its Special Bench decision and holding the amount should be allowed as a deduction. The revenue appealed to the High Court, noting the ITAT's reliance on a Special Bench decision that was later reversed by the Bombay High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer had initially treated the sum as an inflated purchase price, not a trading receipt. The Commissioner (Appeals) then treated it as a trading receipt. The ITAT, however, held that the deposit was not taxable and should be allowed as a deduction, a claim not made by the assessee at any stage. The Court observed that the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. had stated that such matters depend on the facts of each case and that in the absence of specific factual details in the impugned order, it was not proper to reverse the ITAT's decision solely because the Special Bench ruling was overturned. The Court left the question unanswered, permitting the Tribunal to allow additional evidence if necessary before finally disposing of the appeal. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.11,96,005/- being non-refundable deposit recovered from the members? Assessee's contentions (as per Commissioner Appeals and Tribunal): The amount collected was a deposit, adjusted towards share money or loan repayment, or transferred to incoming members upon resignation. It was not a trading receipt. Alternatively, the price paid for sugarcane purchases was an allowable deduction. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT's decision, which deleted the disallowance and allowed the amount as a deduction, was based on a Special Bench decision of the Tribunal that was subsequently reversed by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal should be reversed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/58/1995 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.58 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 Versus SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD ======================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 08/12/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

1.

The

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 →