BIPINBHAI VADILAL FAMILY TRUSTNO.1 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITR/70/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010694198611 June 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 held that the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the annual letting value (ALV) of the property at Rs. 18,000/-. The court's decision was based on the fact that a similar question of law had already been decided in a previous reference, I.T.R. No. 187/84, which pertained to the same assessee. In that prior case, the question was answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, in respectful agreement with the earlier judgment, the High Court answered the present reference in the affirmative, meaning in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that consistent legal precedent on identical facts and issues should be followed. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 1, is challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'A'. The dispute concerns the assessment years not explicitly stated in the provided text but implied by the reference numbers. The core issue is the annual letting value (ALV) of a property. The assessee claimed an ALV of Rs. 6,000 per year, while the revenue determined it to be Rs. 18,000 per year. The ITAT upheld the revenue's determination. This matter has been referred to the High Court for its opinion on a question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the annual letting value of the property in question was correctly worked out at Rs. 18,000/- and not Rs. 6,000/- as claimed by the assessee in each of the years under reference? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of provisions related to the computation of annual letting value of property). Assessee's contention: The assessee's advocate pointed out that a similar question was raised in I.T.R. No. 187/84 concerning the same assessee. This prior reference was answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position, as upheld by the ITAT, was that the ALV was correctly determined at Rs. 18,000.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 70 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?

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

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?

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- BIPINBHAI VADILAL FAMILY TRUSTNO.1 Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR RK PATEL for Petitioner MR BB NAIK for MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1

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

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

Date of decision: 11/06/2001

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

At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', arising out of its order in I.T.A. Nos. 528 & 1521/Ahd/84 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the annual letting value of the property in question was correctly worked out at Rs. 18,000/- and not Rs. 6,000/- as claimed by the assessee in each of the years under reference?"

Learned advocate Shri R.K. Patel appearing on behalf of the assessee has brought to our notice that in case of the assessee itself a similar question had been raised in I.T.R. No. 187/84. The said question was answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

Looking to the fact that the question has already been answered in I.T.R. No. 187/84 and in respectful agreement with the said judgment, we also answer the question referred to us in affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

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

(A.R. Dave, J.)

(D.A. Mehta, J.) (hn)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →