COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NAYANABEN MANSUKHLAL RAICHURA

ITR/273/1993HC GujaratGJHC24021300199321 July 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) filed an Income Tax Reference No. 273 of 1993 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, seeking to challenge an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench "C". The reference was made at the instance of the CIT. The core of the dispute involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 29,80,220/- made under Section 69-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT had passed an order which the CIT sought to question through this reference to the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to answer the question referred by the ITAT. The Court cited the Apex Court's decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal II v. Smt. Anusuya Devi and Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. to reiterate that a High Court is not bound to answer a question referred by the Tribunal merely because it is raised. The Court can decline to answer questions that are purely academic, have no bearing on the dispute, do not arise out of the Tribunal's order, or are unnecessary or irrelevant. In this case, the High Court observed that the ITAT had recorded findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the question referred was considered a question of fact only, and the High Court declined to answer it on merits, disposing of the reference accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.29,80,220/- under Section 69-A of the Income Tax Act? The Assessee (represented by Mr. SN Divatia) likely argued that the ITAT's deletion of the addition was justified based on the facts and evidence presented. The Revenue (represented by Mr. Manish R Bhatt) contended that the ITAT erred in law and fact by deleting the addition, implying that the addition made under Section 69-A was valid. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of each side beyond the framing of the question by the Revenue and the subsequent decision of the High Court to decline answering it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69-A,Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/273/1993 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 273 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HON'BLE 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 NAYANABEN MANSUKHLAL RAICHURA - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No(s).: 1. MR SN DIVATIA for Respondent No(s).: 1. ================================================================== CORAM :  HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 13/06/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1.The Income T

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 →