COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAYANT H HARIBHAKTI

ITR/140/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011873198719 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the revenue (Commissioner of Income-Tax) at the instance of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A'. The reference concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The core issue is whether the assessee, Jayant H Haribhakti, is legally entitled to relief under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously decided this matter based on its earlier decision in the case of Shri B.P. Parikh (I.T.A. No. 24/Ahd/81). The revenue's advocate submitted that the case of Shri B.P. Parikh was decided by the High Court and reported in 239 ITR 645. The respondent assessee was served but did not appear.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, upon perusing the judgment delivered in the case of Shri B.P. Parikh and considering the law laid down by the High Court in that case, answered the question referred in the affirmative. This means the High Court ruled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the High Court in the case of Shri B.P. Parikh (reported in 239 ITR 645). The ratio decidendi is that the legal principle established in the B.P. Parikh case regarding entitlement to relief under Section 80U is applicable to the present assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The operative direction was to answer the question in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled in law to the relief under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Question of law, concerning Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on its earlier ruling in Shri B.P. Parikh (I.T.A. No. 24/Ahd/81). The revenue further submitted that the case of Shri B.P. Parikh had been referred to the High Court and subsequently decided, and this decision was reported in 239 ITR 645. The implication of this submission is that the revenue likely contended that the High Court's decision in the Parikh case, if adverse to the assessee's claim, should be followed, or that the Tribunal's reliance on its own earlier decision was flawed in light of the subsequent High Court pronouncement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 80U

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 140 of 1987

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

============================================================ 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 Civil Judge? : NO

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(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →