COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ASHWINKUMAR GORDHANBHAI & BROSPVT LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITR/390/1984HC GujaratGJHC24012055198419 January 2000Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE J.N.BHATT,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.BUCH3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in its conclusion that the assessee company was an Industrial Company and thus not liable for additional tax under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act. The Court's reasoning was based on an earlier identical decision of the same Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashwinkumar Gordhanbhai & Bros., 212 ITR 614, where a similar question was answered in favour of the assessee. In the absence of any new material requiring a departure from the established precedent, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the meticulous factual aspects of the present case. The reference was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashwinkumar Gordhanbhai & Bros Pvt Ltd., claimed to be an Industrial Company for assessment year 1979-80, thereby seeking exemption from additional tax under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim, passing an order under Section 104. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the ITO's decision, holding the assessee to be an Industrial Company. The Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which confirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The High Court of Gujarat was then asked to give its opinion on a reference made by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company was an Industrial Company and hence not liable for tax under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it was an Industrial Company and therefore not liable for the additional tax leviable under Section 104. The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments before the High Court, but implies their position was upheld by the lower authorities. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the assessee was not an Industrial Company and was liable for the additional tax under Section 104. The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal after the CIT(A) ruled in favour of the assessee. The Revenue made the reference to the High Court for its opinion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 104

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 390 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and

MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ASHWINKUMAR GORDHANBHAI & BROSPVT LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BB NAIK WITH MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 19/01/2000

ORAL JUDGEMENT(J.N.Bhatt, J.) At the instance of the Revenue, the following question

has been referred to us for our opinion, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B" :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee Company was an Industrial Company hence not liable for tax u/s.104 of the I.T.Act ?"

The factual circumstances, which have, given rise to the reference under consideration, may be stated first. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80, in which the assessee, which is a company claimed to be an Industrial Company and, thus, not liable for the additional tax leviable under section 104 of the Income-tax Act. This Gordhanbhai & Bros., 212 ITR 614, wherein, similar question was answered by us against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances and the proposition of law laid down by this Court in earlier decision, in absence of any material requiring departure from the earlier view, we are inclined to follow the same view. Since this reference is, squarely, covered by the earlier view, we do not deem it expedient, at this juncture, to divulge into meticulous factual aspects.

For the reasons enumerated in the earlier decision and the facts of the present case, we are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee company is not liable to tax under section 104 of the Act.

The reference is, thus, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference shall stand disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

..... (vjn)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →