COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVIN INVESTMENT LTD

ITR/41/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022366199506 December 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred a question of law to the Gujarat High Court concerning Assessment Year 1984-85. The dispute involved additional income-tax imposed on undistributed profits by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had canceled the ITO's order, and the ITAT confirmed this cancellation. The ITAT and the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on their own previous orders for Assessment Years 1982-83 and 1983-84 without providing independent reasoning. The revenue acknowledged that for AY 1982-83, the ITAT's order had become final. For AY 1983-84, the revenue had filed a reference application under Section 256(1) which was rejected by the Tribunal, and the revenue did not pursue it further.

What did the High Court hold?

The Gujarat High Court noted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had confirmed the cancellation of the Income Tax Officer's order under Section 104 for Assessment Year 1984-85 by following their own prior orders for Assessment Years 1982-83 and 1983-84, without providing independent reasoning. The Court observed that the order for AY 1982-83 had attained finality, and for AY 1983-84, the revenue had not pursued a reference application after its rejection. The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue could not controvert these facts. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to await service of notice on the respondent and disposed of the reference without answering the question, stating there would be no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wherein he had canceled the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act imposing additional income-tax on undistributed profit? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT and CIT(A) relied on their own prior orders for AY 1982-83 and 1983-84. The order for AY 1982-83 had attained finality. For AY 1983-84, the revenue did not pursue a rejected reference application. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by Mr. B.B. Naik, did not controvert the facts presented in the statement of case regarding the reliance on previous orders and the procedural history of the prior assessment years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 104,Section 256(1),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/41/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.41 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 PRAVIN INVESTMENT LTD - Respondent(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR BB NAIK for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 06/12/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

1.

The Income-tax Appe

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 →