C.I.T. vs. MOTICHAND VIRPAL SHAH

ITR/36/2003HC GujaratGJHC24025692200307 November 2014Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KS JHAVERI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.J.THAKER3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

Facts

The respondent-assessee received interest income of Rs. 78,575/- from the Government of Gujarat under the Land Acquisition Act, relating to land possession taken on 9.3.1971. The Gujarat High Court's judgment was dated 22.10.1980. Notices under Section 148 were issued on 30.3.1988 for Assessment Years 1972-73 to 1976-77 and 1978-79 to 1980-81, to assess the interest income for these years. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelled these re-assessments, holding they were initiated beyond the prescribed limits under Section 148 read with Section 147(a). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed this order. The matter reached the High Court as an Income Tax Reference.

Held

The High Court, considering the smallness of the amount involved and the significant time lapse of approximately 34 years since the original proceedings, decided not to answer the reference. The Court was of the opinion that the reference was not required to be answered after such a long span. Therefore, the reference was disposed of accordingly. No specific finding was given on the merits of the issue regarding the prescribed limits for initiation of reassessment proceedings. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference without answering the question.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the assessment on the ground that the same were initiated beyond the prescribed limit? Assessee's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal cancelled the assessment on the ground that the re-assessments were initiated beyond the prescribed limit under Section 148 read with Section 147(a). Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The revenue is the applicant before the High Court, seeking to challenge the order of the Tribunal.

Sections Cited

Section 148, Section 147(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O/ITR/36/2003 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 36 of 2003

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ C.I.T.....Applicant(s) Versus MOTICHAND VIRPAL SHAH....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →