COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS,

ITR/62/1993HC GujaratGJHC24021174199306 July 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'C', referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning Assessment Year 1982-83. The sole issue was whether the assessee, Arvind Jewellers, was entitled to the renewal of its registration. It was agreed by both the Commissioner of Income Tax (petitioner) and the assessee (respondent) that the facts for this assessment year were identical to those of Assessment Year 1981-82. The ITAT's order, which was under challenge, had followed its previous decision for Assessment Year 1981-82 without providing independent reasoning.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court stated that for the reasons given in its judgment rendered on the same day in Income Tax Reference No. 173/1989, the question was to be answered in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal's impugned order was challenged for following its own order for Assessment Year 1981-82 without assigning independent reasons. The ratio decidendi is that when facts are identical to a previous assessment year and the Tribunal's order for that year is being followed without independent reasoning, the High Court will apply the same logic as in the prior reference. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was entitled to the renewal of registration for Assessment Year 1982-83, turning on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning registration renewal. The assessee contended that the facts were identical to Assessment Year 1981-82. The revenue did not record any specific contention in the judgment, but implicitly challenged the renewal by being the petitioner. The Tribunal's decision was based on its prior order for Assessment Year 1981-82.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 62 of 1993

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. 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 question has been referred by th

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 →