COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHHAYABEN S. BACHKANIWALA

ITA/281/1999HC GujaratGJHC24025020199928 September 1999Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.C.PATEL,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, filed an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Gujarat. The application sought a reference to the High Court on a question of law concerning a deletion made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted additions of Rs. 2,89,243 and Rs. 40,000 made by the Assessing Officer during block periods. These additions were based on inferences drawn from seized materials. The High Court, by a common judgment in ITA No. 266 of 1999, had previously dealt with a similar question and, in view of that decision, rejected the present application.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court rejected the application filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that it had already passed an order in ITA No. 266 of 1999, which covered the question raised in the present application. In view of the decision rendered in ITA No. 266 of 1999, the High Court found no reason to entertain the present application. Consequently, the application was rejected, and the rule was discharged. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar question has been decided by the High Court in a prior case, a subsequent application for reference on the same issue will be rejected. The operative direction was the rejection of the application and discharge of the rule.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,89,243 and Rs. 40,000 in the block periods made by the Assessing Officer by drawing an inference from the seized materials? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's decision to delete the additions was based on its consideration of a previous High Court decision. Revenue's Contention: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) contended that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were based on inferences from seized materials. The Revenue sought a reference to the High Court to challenge this deletion.

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 APPLICATION No 281 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 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 1 to 5 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(2)

All 149 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →