COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. D N DOSANI

ITR/142/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020219199405 October 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI14 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee, D.N. Dosani, for assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84. The CIT's show cause notice identified two specific issues: improper consideration of total investment in films and incorrect allowance of write-off of film costs. The CIT's order dated February 19, 1987, set aside the assessments and directed the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to redo them considering these aspects. In the fresh assessments dated March 30, 1988, the ITO made additions and disallowances beyond the two issues highlighted by the CIT. The assessee appealed, but the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the orders. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which upheld the preliminary objection that the ITO could only consider the two specified items.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in its finding. The Court reasoned that the scope of reassessment under Section 263 is limited by the issues raised in the show cause notice and the CIT's revisional order. The CIT must provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard on specific grounds. Therefore, the ITO, while giving effect to the CIT's order, cannot expand the scope of reassessment to items not covered by the Section 263 proceedings, as this would amount to the ITO exercising revisional powers which he does not possess. The operative part of the CIT's order must be read in conjunction with the preceding discussion and the show cause notice. The Court disagreed with the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (I) Pvt. Ltd. on this point. Consequently, the question referred at the instance of the Commissioner was answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee. The question referred at the instance of the assessee was left unanswered due to non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. On the department's request for assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the fresh assessment order passed in pursuance of the order of the learned Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Officer was entitled to consider only those two items which were considered by the learned Commissioner and was not entitled to consider afresh any other item for making addition? Assessee's contention: The ITAT held that the ITO could only consider the two specific issues raised by the CIT in the Section 263 proceedings and could not travel beyond them in the fresh assessment. The ITAT reasoned that the CIT's show cause notice and order clearly limited the scope of reassessment to these two points, and the operative part of the CIT's order should be read in context. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the CIT's order under Section 263 had set aside the entire assessment, allowing the ITO to consider all items afresh under Section 143(3) or 144 of the Act, even those not mentioned in the Section 263 proceedings. The revenue relied on the Madras High Court decision in CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (I) Pvt. Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 541. 2. On the assessee's request for assessment year 1983-84 only: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled for deduction of the entire cost of films in the year of payment? This question was left unanswered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 263,Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/142/1994 1/14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 142 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 D N DOSANI - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant NOTICE SERVED for Respondent ================================================================== CORAM :  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 05/10/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

ITR/142/1994 2/14 JUDGMENT 1.The Income

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) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →