MALBAR INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/209/1992HC GujaratGJHC24015551199216 October 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that the Income-tax Officer had rightly passed an order under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act and thereby levied additional tax. The Court's reasoning was based on its previous decision rendered on 2.2.1999 in Income-tax Reference No. 151 of 1984 in the case of Ranoli Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. The ratio decidendi is that the ITAT's finding on the justification of the ITO's order under Section 104 and the levy of additional tax was legally sound, as per the precedent set by this Court. The question referred to the High Court was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No specific operative directions were issued beyond answering the reference.

What were the facts?

The assessee is Malbar Investment Pvt. Ltd. and the revenue is the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessment year in question is 1977-78. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue. The dispute concerns the Income-tax Officer's order under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act and the levy of additional tax. The High Court heard arguments from both the assessee and the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in passing an order under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act and thereby levying an additional tax? Assessee's contention: Mr. R.K. Patel for the applicant-assessee fairly pointed out that the controversy raised by the question referred stands answered against the assessee by a previous decision of this Court. Revenue's contention: Mr. Akil Kureshi for the revenue was heard. The revenue's stance is implicit in the question referred to the High Court, seeking to uphold the ITAT's decision that the ITO was justified in passing the order under Section 104 and levying additional tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 104

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 209 of 1992

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- MALBAR INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 209 of 1992 MR RK PATEL for Petitioner MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

Date of decision: 16/10/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred

the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the revenue :-

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in passing order u/s. 104 of the Income-tax Act and thereby levying an additional tax ?"

2.

The assessment year involved is 1977-78. We have heard Mr RK Patel for the applicant-assessee and Mr Akil Kureshi for the revenue. It was fairly pointed out by Mr Patel that the controversy raised by the question referred in this reference stands answered against the assessee by the decision of this Court rendered on 2.2.1999 in Income-tax Reference No. 151 of 1984 in case that the Income-tax officer had rightly passed order under Section 104 of the Act and thereby levied additional tax under the said provision. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

3.

The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

(M.S. Shah, J.)

(D.A. Mehta, J.) sundar/-

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →