COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS

ITR/173/1989HC GujaratGJHC24012953198906 July 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arvind Jewellers, a partnership firm, sought registration for Assessment Year 1981-82. The Assessing Officer granted registration. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issuing a show cause notice. The Commissioner, by an order dated 23.11.1984, held the Assessing Officer's order granting registration to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, setting it aside with a direction to pass a fresh order after necessary investigation. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, by an order dated 19.09.1986, allowed the appeal, holding the Commissioner's order to be bad in law. The High Court was hearing a reference at the instance of the Commissioner.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order made by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the Commissioner had read the partners' statements in a truncated manner and that a document must be read as a whole. The Court noted that the genuineness of a firm is primarily a question of fact, and the inference drawn from facts is also a question of fact. The revenue did not demonstrate that the Assessing Officer's view was not a possible one or that no investigation was carried out. The Court emphasized that for Section 263 jurisdiction, the order must be erroneous, which was not established. The Commissioner's disagreement with the Assessing Officer's view, when two views were possible, did not constitute a valid reason for exercising powers under Section 263. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and answered both reference questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order made by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax could not have exercised powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the material on record? Assessee's contentions: The Tribunal had recorded various findings of fact which were not shown to be incorrect. The scope of Section 263 requires the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. If the Assessing Officer adopted a permissible course of action or one of two possible views, the order cannot be treated as prejudicial or erroneous unless unsustainable in law. The Assessing Officer had made proper investigation before granting registration. Revenue's contentions: The Commissioner was not satisfied with the partners' answers and initiated action under Section 263. No prejudice was caused as the order was set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order after investigation. The Tribunal wrongly interfered with an innocuous order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 185,Section 263,Section 132,Section 185(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 173 of 1989

For Approval and Signature:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI

=======================================================

======================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Petitioner(s) Versus ARVIND JEWELLERS - Respondent(s) ======================================================= Appearance :

MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No(s).: 1. MR RK PATEL for Respondent No(s).: 1. ======================================================= 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 ?

1.

1. 1. CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI

Date : 06/07/2005

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

Following two questions have been referred by the Inc

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 →