COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT S. BACHKANIWALA

ITA/294/1999HC GujaratGJHC24025033199928 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, requesting the High Court to direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to refer a question of law for their opinion. The question concerned the ITAT's deletion of additions of Rs. 4,54,987 and Rs. 8,03,494 made by the Assessing Officer for block periods, based on an inference drawn from seized materials. The ITAT had rejected the Commissioner's application for reference, relying on a previous decision of the High Court in the case of N.R. PAPER & BOARDS LTD. reported in 234 ITR page 733. The High Court, in its judgment, referred to its own order in ITA No. 266 of 1999, which covered the same issue.

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. By virtue of the decision rendered in ITA No. 266 of 1999, the application for reference was required to be rejected. The High Court's reasoning for rejecting the application is based on its prior decision, which presumably upheld the ITAT's view or found no substantial question of law warranting a reference. The operative direction was to reject the application and discharge the rule, with no order as to costs. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the additions are not detailed in this judgment, as it focuses on the procedural aspect of refusing a reference.

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. 4,54,987 and Rs. 8,03,494 in the block periods made by the Assessing Officer by drawing an inference from the seized materials? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision to delete the additions, as challenged by the Revenue, implies the assessee likely argued that the additions were not warranted based on the seized materials or that the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. 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 drawn from seized materials. The Revenue sought a reference to the High Court on this question of law.

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 294 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and Hon'ble 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 →