ACRON PHARMACEUTICALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITR/398/1984HC GujaratGJHC24012063198419 January 2000Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE J.N.BHATT,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.BUCH2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in its oral judgment, noted that the assessee, despite being served with notice, did not appear to assist the Court. The Court expressed helplessness in dealing with the reference due to the absence of the assessee, attributing it to potential apathy or indifference. Consequently, the Court decided that the reference deserved rejection in default. The outcome was that the reference stood disposed of as not answered, meaning the High Court did not provide an opinion on the substantial question of law. No finding was reached on the entitlement to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the assessee, Acron Pharmaceuticals, against the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reference was made at the instance of the assessee after an order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad was to provide its opinion on a specific question of law. Despite notice being served on the assessee, no one appeared on their behalf when the matter was called out. The learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue) was present. The reference was noted to be very old, approximately 16 years.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide one question of law, referred at the instance of the assessee: 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not entitled to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation to the subsequent assessment years? The assessee's contention is implicit in the framing of the question, as they sought a ruling that they *are* entitled to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation. The Revenue's position, as upheld by the Tribunal, is that the assessee is not entitled to this benefit. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments or authorities relied upon by either side before the Tribunal or the High Court, other than the fact that the Tribunal had already made a holding on the matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 398 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 : 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- ACRON PHARMACEUTICALS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Petitioner MR BB NAIK WITH MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1

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

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

ORAL JUDGEMENT(Per J.N.Bhatt, J.) When the matter was called out, again, today, none

appeared for and on behalf of the applicant, whereas, learned counsel Mr B.B.Naik for the respondent was present. For our opinion, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee company:

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not entitled to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation to the subsequent assessment years?"

It is reported by the Office that notice has already been served on the assessee. Despite that, it chose not to appear and assist the Court, presumably, because the assessee may not, now, be inquisitive to have a judicial opinion of this Court, upon the question referred to, at its instance.

Again, this reference is very old and is almost as old as 16 years. In the circumstances, this Court has to raise its hands in helplessness from dealing with the reference sent to us for our opinion in absence of the assessee's appearance and assistance, if not apathy or indifference.

In the result, the reference deserves the only fate of rejection in default. Accordingly, the reference shall stand disposed of as not answered.

....

(vjn)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →