COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHAMBHULAL C. BACHKANIWALA (HUF)

ITA/287/1999HC GujaratGJHC24025026199928 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 at Ahmedabad. The application sought a reference to the High Court on a question of law arising from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted additions of Rs. 8,01,348 and Rs. 7,63,645 made by the Assessing Officer for block periods, based on inferences drawn from seized materials. The High Court considered a previous decision of its own in the case of N.R. PAPER & BOARDS LTD. (234 ITR 733) and a related appeal (ITA No. 266 of 1999) before disposing of this 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. By virtue of the decision in ITA No. 266 of 1999, the application was required to be rejected. The Tribunal's decision to delete the additions was implicitly upheld by the High Court's refusal to direct a reference. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by the High Court in a prior case, a subsequent application seeking a reference on the same question will be rejected. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.

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. 8,01,348 and Rs. 7,63,645 in the block periods made by the Assessing Officer by drawing an inference from the seized materials? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Shambhulal C. Bachkaniwala (HUF)) before the High Court in this application. The ITAT's decision to delete the additions was based on its interpretation of the seized materials and inferences drawn. Revenue's Contentions: The Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (the petitioner), argued that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were based on inferences from seized materials. The Commissioner sought a reference to the High Court to decide 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 287 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 →