GIRDHARRAM HARIRAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITR/344/1984HC GujaratGJHC24012009198419 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, comprising Mr. Justice J.N. Bhatt and Mr. Justice C.K. Buch, decided to reject the reference in default. The Court noted that despite notice being served, the assessee chose not to appear and assist the Court. The Court expressed helplessness in dealing with the old reference (16 years old) in the absence of the assessee's appearance and assistance, attributing it to apathy or indifference. Consequently, the reference was disposed of as not answered. The Court did not provide any finding on the merits of the questions referred, as the assessee's absence prevented any substantive deliberation. Therefore, no ratio decidendi or operative directions were issued on the substance of the dispute.

What were the facts?

This case concerns an Income Tax Reference filed by the assessee, Girdharam Hariram, against the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax. The reference was made at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment years in question are 1967-68 and 1971-72. The dispute revolves around the includibility of refunds amounting to Rs. 13,97,848/- in the assessee's wealth for taxation. The High Court noted that notices had been served on the assessee, but no one appeared on their behalf. The learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue) was present. The High Court observed that the reference was very old, dating back 16 years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, refunds due for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1971-72 amounting to Rs. 13,97,848/- were includible in the wealth of the Appellant, as taxable? (Question of law) 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the full amount of Rs. 13,97,848/- was includible in the wealth of the appellant and not to be discounted considering the hazards of litigation and the uncertainty of the receipt of the refund from the Income-tax Department? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee, by referring the matter to the High Court, implicitly argued that the refunds were not includible in their wealth, or at least that a discounted value should be considered due to litigation hazards and uncertainty of receipt. The assessee's absence from the hearing suggests a lack of further interest in pursuing these arguments. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, represented by Mr. B.B. Naik, was present. Their contention, as implied by the Tribunal's decision which the assessee is challenging, would be that the full amount of refunds was indeed includible in the assessee's wealth.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 344 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- GIRDHARRAM HARIRAM Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: NOTICE SERVED 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(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 on the facts and circumstances of the case refunds due for the assessment year 1967-68 and 1971-72 amounting to Rs.13,97,848/- were includible in the wealth of the Appellant, as taxable ?"

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the full amount of Rs.13,97,848/- was includible in the wealth of the appellant and not to be discounted value of Rs.13,97,848/- taking into consideration the hazards litigation and the uncertainty of the receipt of the refund from the Income-tax Department ?"

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 →