M/S. MUKESH POULTRY FARM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

TAXAP/20/2005HC GujaratGJHC24033416200511 October 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI6 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) committed an error in law by not entertaining the ground regarding deduction under Section 80JJ. The Court found that the claim for Section 80JJ deduction was indeed made before the Assessing Officer (AO) and was allowed, as evident from the assessment order and the statement of total income filed with the return. The Tribunal's observation that the ground was not pressed and required factual investigation was deemed factually incorrect and erroneous. Since the AO had initially allowed the deduction and the subsequent additions were also sustained by treating the income as from poultry farming business, there was no need for further factual investigation. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal to the limited extent of the ground relating to Section 80JJ deduction and restored the assessee's appeal to the Tribunal for deciding the said ground on merits. The principle is that if a deduction was initially allowed and the income source remains undisputed as poultry farming, the Tribunal should not decline to consider the claim for deduction on the basis of an unsubstantiated assertion that it was not pressed or requires investigation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Mukesh Poultry Farm, filed a return for assessment year 1994-95 claiming a deduction of Rs. 2,792/- under Section 80JJ. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed this deduction but added Rs. 19,84,500/- by treating the business income of three other entities as the assessee's. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially succeeded the assessee, modifying the addition to 25% net profit on a turnover of Rs. 44,43,096/-. Both the assessee and the revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT dismissed both appeals. In its order dated 5/4/2004, the ITAT declined to entertain a ground raised by the assessee for Section 80JJ deduction, stating it was not pressed before the AO or CIT(A) and required factual investigation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not entertaining the ground regarding relief under Section 80JJ of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the claim for deduction under Section 80JJ was indeed made before the AO and was allowed, as evidenced by the assessment order and the accompanying statement of total income. The assessee contended that the ITAT erred in stating that the ground was not pressed and required factual investigation, especially since the AO had already accepted the income as being from poultry farming. The assessee sought additional relief under Section 80JJ from the sustained additions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue. However, the revenue had appealed the order of the CIT(A) to the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80JJ

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TAXAP/20/2005 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 20 of 2005 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 ? ============================================================== M/S. MUKESH POULTRY FARM - Appellant(s) Versus THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER - Opponent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR JP SHAH FOR MR. MANISH SHAH for Appellant MR TANVISH U BHATT for Opponent(s) : 1, ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 11/10/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

TAXAP/20/2005 2/6

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 account Sign 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →