COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAVINDRA CHANDULAL SHAH

ITR/134/1992HC GujaratGJHC24015480199229 December 2004Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ravindra Chandulal Shah, was assessed for Assessment Year 1983-84. Initially, a net loss of Rs. 14,528/- was determined. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 155 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, revising the total income to Rs. 4,80,489/-. In this revised assessment, the Assessing Officer charged interest under Sections 139(8) and 215. The assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who held that the amended provisions applicable from 1/4/1985 were not applicable to the assessment year under consideration and deleted the interest. The revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question referred to it was concluded by its own decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishwajit Mehta, (2002) 254 ITR 66. For the reasons stated in that judgment, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This means the Tribunal was correct in holding that no interest under Section 139(8) or Section 215 could be charged on the revision of an assessment under Section 155 for the Assessment Year 1983-84. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in law and on facts, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that no interest under Section 139(8) or Section 215 can be charged on revision of an assessment under Section 155 of the Act? Assessee's contention: The assessee contended that the amended provisions of Section 139(8) and Section 215, which became applicable from Assessment Year 1985-86, were not applicable to the Assessment Year 1983-84. Therefore, the interest charged was not leviable. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 was correctly charged on the revised assessment under Section 155. However, the revenue's counsel conceded that the issue was concluded against the Revenue by a direct decision of the High Court in CIT vs. Vishwajit Mehta (2002) 254 ITR 66.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(8),Section 215,Section 155,Section 256(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 134 of 1992

For Approval and Signature:

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

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,

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 139(8)

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(8) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →