COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S N PARUKH PARSI POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

PDF · subscribers
ITR/144/1988HC GujaratGJHC24013220198811 December 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.C.PATEL,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee's income was entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court answered the referred question in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reasoning was based on the binding precedent of the Court's own decision in the assessee's own case, CIT vs. Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh, 201 ITR 939. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by the High Court in the assessee's own case, that decision will govern subsequent references on the same issue. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was the applicant (revenue), and S N Parukh Parsi Polytechnic Institute was the respondent (assessee). The ITAT had held that the assessee's income was entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue challenged this decision. At the time of hearing, the revenue's counsel pointed out that the issue was concluded by a previous decision of the High Court in the assessee's own case, CIT vs. Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh, 201 ITR 939. The assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income of the assessee was entitled to exemption under sub-section (22) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the fact that the ITAT granted the exemption implies the assessee argued for its eligibility under Section 10(22). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the issue was already decided by the High Court in the assessee's own case, CIT vs. Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh, 201 ITR 939, which presumably held against the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(22). The revenue also submitted that the ITAT made the reference only because an earlier year's reference was pending.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(22),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 144 of 1988

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus S N PARUKH PARSI POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 144 of 1988 MR AKIL QURESHI FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant. SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

Date of decision: 11/12/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 The following question is referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner, for assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income of the assessee was entitled to exemption under sub-section (22) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act,1961?"

2 At the time of hearing, Mr.Akil Qureshi appeared on behalf of the applicant-revenue. Though served none appears on behalf of the assessee. Mr.Qureshi pointed out that the controversy raised stands concluded by the decision of this Court in assessee's own case (C.I.T. vs. Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh), 201 I.T.R.939. He further submited that the Tribunal has made a reference only because the earlier year's reference was pending. In light of this situation, it is not necessary to set out facts in detail.

3 For the reasons stated in the aforesaid reported decision in assessee's own case, we hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that income of the assessee was entitled to exemption under sub-section (22) of section 10 of the Act. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

4 The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (B.C.Patel, J) (D.A.Mehta,J)

m.m.bhatt

More judgments on Section 10(22)

All 59 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(22) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →