KASHIRAM OMPRAKASH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/169/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010793198618 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference made at the instance of the assessee, Kashiram Omprakash, to the High Court of Gujarat. The reference concerns the assessment years 1977-78 and 1979-80. The core factual issue is that for both assessment years, the total tax paid by the assessee, including advance tax and tax deducted at source, exceeded the assessed tax liability. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had passed two orders, one for AY 1977-78 and another for AY 1979-80. The assessee's contention, and the basis for the reference, is that the ITAT departed from its earlier decision on the same question when deciding the matter for AY 1979-80, despite similar facts.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in departing from its earlier decision. The Court noted that the basic facts pertaining to both assessment years (1977-78 and 1979-80) were similar, with the tax paid by the assessee exceeding the assessed tax liability in both instances. The Tribunal's subsequent order for AY 1979-80, which deviated from its earlier order for AY 1977-78, was considered an error. The Court relied on the Madras High Court's judgment in CIT, Central v. L.G. Ramamurthy and others (110 ITR 453), which states that the Tribunal should not pass an order contrary to its previous decision when the basic facts are the same and there is no reason to change its view. Consequently, the question referred to the Court was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in departing from its earlier decision on the same question? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Tribunal, in its order for Assessment Year 1979-80, erred by not following its own earlier decision for Assessment Year 1977-78, despite the basic facts for both years being similar. The assessee submitted to the court and did not engage an advocate, asking for the matter to be decided on merits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by learned advocate Shri Akil Qureshi, did not explicitly state its contentions in the judgment. However, the reference itself implies a dispute regarding the Tribunal's departure from its earlier decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 169 of 1986

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 →