COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AGARWAL PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/114/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010738198609 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, per Mr. Justice A.R. Dave and Mr. Justice D.A. Mehta, answered the referred question in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Court relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Limited, 231 ITR 50. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court's decision in Shri Arbuda Mills Limited has settled the issue regarding the Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction was incorrect. The reference is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) preferred a reference to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reference was made at the instance of the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The assessee is Agarwal Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The dispute concerns the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer. The Revenue was represented by Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, while the assessee was served but did not appear.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to revise the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer? The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 263. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 114 of 1986

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE 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 AGARWAL PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 114 of 1986 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

Date of decision: 09/07/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE)

1.

At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench `C'.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax had no juri iction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to revise the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer?"

2.

Learned advocate Shri Bharat Naik has appeared for the revenue, whereas nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee, though the assessee has been served.

3.

Upon hearing the learned advocate and, upon perusal of the statement of the case, we find that the question which has been referred to this Court has now been answered by the Honourable the Supreme Court in the Case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Limited 231 ITR 50. Looking to the judgment delivered in the said case we answer the question in the negative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

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

9.7.

2001. (A.R. Dave, J.)

(D.A. Mehta, J.)

/phalguni/

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 →