THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMRATLAL DAHVABHAI PATEL(HUF)

PDF · subscribers

ITA/359/1999HC GujaratGJHC24025098199907 August 2002Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, was of the view that a substantial question of law did arise from the ITAT's order. The Court allowed the application and directed the Tribunal to prepare a statement of case on the identified question of law. The operative direction was to refer the specific question concerning the assessment year of the land transfer to the High Court for its determination. The Court did not decide the merits of the question itself but facilitated its further adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed an application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. This application, along with Income Tax Application No. 360 of 1999, arose from a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad. The High Court was invited to consider a decision dated 27-9-2000 passed in Income-tax Application No. 360 of 1999. After hearing counsel for both parties, the High Court identified a question of law that arose from the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide whether the transfer of land fell within the assessment year 1994-95. The proposed question of law framed by the High Court was: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the transfer of land would not fall in the period 1993-94 relevant to assessment year 1994-95 with reference to the deed of ratification dated 18-4-1996 and handing over of the possession of land for building activities in 1993 as per oral agreement in that year?" The judgment does not record the specific contentions of the assessee (Amratlal Dahvabhai Patel (HUF)) or the revenue (The Commissioner of Income Tax) before the High Court. It only states that the High Court heard the learned counsel for the parties.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 359 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ

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

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

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?

Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? @ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus AMRATLAL DAHVABHAI PATEL(HUF) -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX APPLICATION No. 359 of 1999 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR SN SOPARKAR for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ

Date of decision: 07/08/2002

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) The present application as well as Income-tax Application No.360 of 1999 arose out of the common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

Our attention is invited to the decision dated 27-9-2000 passed by this Court in Income-tax Application No.360 of 1999. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that on the proposed question No.1 in the memo of the application, the following question of law does arise:-

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the transfer of land would not fall in the period 1993-94 relevant to assessment year 1994-95 with reference to the deed of ratification dated 18-4-1996 and handing over of the possession of land for building activities in 1993 as per oral agreement in that year?"

We, therefore, allow this application. The Tribunal is directed to prepare a statement of case and send it to this Court on the above question No.1 proposed in this application.

Rule is made absolute but with no order as to costs.

(M.S. Shah,J) (K.A. Puj,J) zgs/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →