THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GNAN GANGA SCIENCE INSTI.

ITA/28/1999HC GujaratGJHC24024767199916 March 1999Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE J.N.BHATT,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

This case involves 24 applications under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, dated August 3, 1998. The dispute originated from searches conducted in the premises of five educational institutions and the residential premises of some partners, including Krishnakant G. Dholakia (KGD). The Assessing Officer (AO) held that all five institutions were benamidars of KGD, deeming them not genuine and KGD as the real owner. The assessment years involved were 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. The AO refused registration to these firms. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the AO's decision, finding the firms genuine and KGD not the real owner, thus allowing the assessee's appeals. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders. The revenue filed reference applications under Section 256(1) which were rejected by the ITAT, leading to these applications before the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the applications under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were without merit and liable to be rejected. The Court reasoned that the scope of Section 256(2) is circumscribed, and powers thereunder can only be exercised if the Tribunal's decision in refusing a reference is unsupportable. The Court emphasized that a question of law must be involved, and the Tribunal's finding of fact cannot be questioned unless it is perverse. In this case, two appellate authorities, the CIT(A) and the ITAT, had concurrently and consistently held on facts that the AO's assessment was wrong, finding the firms to be genuine. The Court cited various Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including CIT v. Karan Chand Thapar and Bros. (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Juggilal Kamlapat, to establish that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding forum. A finding of fact is erroneous in law only if it is unsupported by evidence or is unreasonable or perverse. The Court concluded that the genuineness of a firm is ordinarily a question of fact, and the High Court cannot go behind the facts found by the Tribunal unless the findings are perverse. Since no substantial questions of law were identified, the applications were rejected.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to call for a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, when the Tribunal has rejected the revenue's reference application under Section 256(1). Assessee's Contentions: - The applications under Section 256(2) are liable to be rejected as no substantial questions of law are involved, given the limited scope of the provision. Revenue's Contentions: - The orders of both the appellate authorities (CIT(A) and ITAT) are perverse. - The five educational institutions are not genuine firms, and KGD is the sole owner of all five institutions, with the firms being fake.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 256(1),Section 66

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 28 of 1999 to INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 50 of 1999 with INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 57 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

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 →