COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT MILLS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/163/1984HC GujaratGJHC24011837198409 February 1999Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE J.N.BHATT,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the controversy arising from the two questions of law referred by the Tribunal had been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd, reported in 231 ITR 50. In light of this Supreme Court decision, the High Court answered both questions in the negative, meaning they were answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The reference was accordingly disposed of. The specific reasoning of the Supreme Court decision that led to this conclusion is not detailed in the judgment, nor are the operative directions beyond answering the questions and disposing of the reference.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking the opinion of the High Court of Gujarat on two questions of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The assessee is Rohit Mills Ltd. The reference concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated. The core of the dispute revolves around whether an assessment order merges with an appellate order for issues not appealed, and the validity of an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 263. The procedural history involves the Tribunal referring these questions to the High Court.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of assessment was to be treated as merged with the Appellate order with regard to issues which were not the subject matter of appeal before the law authorities? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax on 28th June, 1979 under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1971 was liable to be set aside? The judgment does not record the specific arguments made by the assessee or the revenue for each question. However, it notes that the controversy has been resolved by a Supreme Court decision.

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 163 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?

-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus ROHIT MILLS LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BB NAIK WITH MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR MANISH J SHAH FOR MR J.P.SHAH for Respondent

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 09/02/99

ORAL JUDGEMENT (per J.N.Bhatt, J.)

By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad has referred the following two questions of law, for our opinion:

"

1.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of assessment was to be treated as merged with the Appellate order with regard to issues which were not the subject matter of appeal before the law authorities ?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax on 28th June, 1979 under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1971 was liable to be set aside ?"

2.

At the time of hearing of this matter, it was fairly pointed out that the controversy arising out of the aforesaid two questions has been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd, 231 ITR 50. 3. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in our opinion, the reference is required to be answered in the negative. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in the negative, i.e. against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

....... (vjn)

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 →