COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHOKSHI VINODCHANDRA CHANDULAL

ITR/266/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020342199423 November 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) has filed an Income Tax Reference before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The assessment year in question is 1981-82, corresponding to the accounting period S.Y.2036. The ITAT's earlier order, dated 28.9.1987, had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and restored the order of the Income Tax Officer. Consequently, the ITAT had sent the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The Revenue's earlier challenge to the ITAT's order of 28.9.1987 was filed as ITR No. 330 of 1993.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to answer the reference. The Court noted that the ITAT's order dated 15.12.1987, which was the subject of the present reference, was consequential to the earlier order dated 28.9.1987. The revenue's challenge to the earlier order of 28.9.1987 in ITR No. 330 of 1993 had already been declined to be answered by the High Court on 23.8.2005. Therefore, in the circumstances, the present reference was also declined to be answered and stood disposed of accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that if a reference concerning a primary order is declined, a subsequent reference concerning a consequential order arising from the primary order will also be declined.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in remanding the matter to the CIT (A) for fresh decision? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Mrs. M.M. Bhatt, argued that the ITAT was not right in remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. However, the learned counsel fairly pointed out that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 28.9.1987, which was the basis for the remand, had been carried before the High Court in ITR No. 330 of 1993. The High Court, by an order dated 23.8.2005, had declined to answer that reference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/266/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 266 of 1994 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 CHOKSHI VINODCHANDRA CHANDULAL - Respondent(s) ================================================ 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

ITR/266/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT Date : 23/11/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1 The Income Tax Appellat

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 →