COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OJAS TAR PLAST(P) LTD.

ITR/253/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020329199423 November 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 253 of 1994, filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) against Ojas Tar Plast (P) Ltd. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'A', at the instance of the revenue. The specific question referred to the High Court concerns the ITAT's decision regarding a penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its relevance to the present issue. The revenue appeared through its counsel, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, while the respondent-assessee, despite being served, did not appear.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, per Honourable Mr. Justice D.A. Mehta and Honourable Ms. Justice H.N. Devani, answered the referred question in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court's decision was based on the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, who fairly invited attention to a prior judgment of the High Court in CIT Vs. R.B. Masturlal And Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Reference No. 26 of 1994, decided on 12/08/2005). This precedent, according to the revenue's counsel, concluded the issue raised in the reference. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue raised in a reference is already concluded by a binding precedent of the High Court, the reference should be decided in accordance with that precedent, even if the assessee does not appear.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in placing reliance on a decision rendered under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had no bearing to the present issue? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel Mr. M.R. Bhatt, conceded that the issue raised by the referred question stands concluded by a previous judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.B. Masturlal And Sons Pvt. Ltd., delivered on 12/08/2005 in Income Tax Reference No. 26 of 1994. This implies the revenue accepted that the ITAT's reliance on the Section 271(1)(a) decision was appropriate or that the question was no longer debatable in light of the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 271(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/253/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.253 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 OJAS TAR PLAST(P) LTD. - Respondent(s) ================================================ Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================

ITR/253/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 23/11/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 The following question has b

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 →