COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANTILAL BHOGILAL

ITR/138/1989HC GujaratGJHC24012918198921 November 2002Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, an HUF, had land and building acquired by the government. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on August 16, 1960, and under Section 6 on February 20, 1964. Compensation was awarded on March 5, 1965, and possession was handed over on June 30, 1966. For AY 1965-66, the assessee initially showed capital gains but later deleted it via a revised return, which the Assessing Officer accepted. The Tribunal, in an order dated September 30, 1975, held that the capital gains should be taxed in AY 1967-68. The assessee filed a return for AY 1967-68 on September 6, 1967, and later, by a letter dated December 7, 1967, offered the capital gains for tax. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 on December 23, 1975, and passed a reassessment order on July 24, 1976, taxing the capital gains. The Tribunal, however, held the reassessment proceedings invalid.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the reassessment order. The Court reasoned that Section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, permits the issuance of a notice under Section 148 at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by an appellate authority. In this case, the Tribunal's earlier order dated September 30, 1975, had definitively held that the capital gains were taxable in AY 1967-68. To give effect to this finding, it was open to the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 148 for reassessing the income for AY 1967-68. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 was proper, and the reassessment order was just and proper. The Court answered the first question in the negative, in favour of the revenue. The second and third questions were not necessary to answer in light of the decision on the first question.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and capital gains could not be taxed for AY 1967-68? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that all necessary facts were before the I.T.O. to assess capital gains for AY 1967-68 prior to his seeking original assessment, hence reopening was not valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961). 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Section 147(a) was not applicable and proceedings under Section 147(b) were time-barred as they were made more than 4 years after the original assessment? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 147(a), 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's arguments: The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and the notice under Section 148 was not proper, making the reassessment bad in law. The assessee also argued that they had made a complete and true disclosure of all material facts for the purpose of assessment. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the Tribunal failed to consider material facts. They argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued in pursuance of the Tribunal's order dated September 30, 1975, which determined that capital gains were taxable in AY 1967-68. The revenue relied on Section 150 of the Act, stating that a notice under Section 148 can be issued at any time to give effect to any finding or direction in an order passed by an appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 147(a),Section 147(b),Section 148,Section 150

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 138 of 1989

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA

============================================================ 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 concerned : NO Mag

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 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →