COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VIJAY ESTATE CORPN.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/182/1998HC GujaratGJHC24024220199806 August 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.C.PATEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises from the decision of the Tribunal for the opinion of the Court. The Court noted that the ITAT had rejected the department's application under Section 256(1) by relying on a previous decision concerning a similar issue in Vijay Development Corporation. Furthermore, the department had approached the High Court under Section 256(2) in a related matter (ITA 1 of 1995) against the ITAT's order in ITA No. 145 of 1990, and that application was also rejected by the High Court. Based on these prior rejections and the lack of a substantial question of law, the High Court rejected the present application. The operative direction was the rejection of the application.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax filed an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to refer a question of law to the High Court. The question concerned whether the ITAT was correct in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant continuation of registration to the assessee firm, Vijay Estate Corpn. The ITAT had previously rejected a similar application (ITA No. 145 of 1990) by the department, relying on a decision in Vijay Development Corporation. The department had also filed an application (ITA 1 of 1995) under Section 256(2) against the ITAT's order in ITA No. 145 of 1990, which was rejected by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO to grant continuation of registration to the assessee firm? The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was not legally sound and factually incorrect. The Revenue relied on the fact that a similar question was raised in Vijay Development Corporation, Ahmedabad, in Regular Appeal No. 203 of 1994, which was decided against the department. The Revenue also pointed to the rejection of ITA No. 145 of 1990 by the ITAT. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The Revenue's argument was that the ITAT's decision in the present case followed the same reasoning as in the rejected application (ITA No. 145 of 1990).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 182 of 1998

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 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 VIJAY ESTATE CORPN. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 06/08/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This application is filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 256 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question for the opinion of this Court.

"

1.

Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right

in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to grant continuation of registration to the assessee firm ?"

2.

The Tribunal rejected the application filed by the applicant under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 inter alia relying on the fact that a similar question was raised in Vijay Development Corporation, Ahmedabad in Regular Appeal No. 203 of 1994 which was decided against the department. An application being ITA No. 145 of 1990 was also rejected by the Tribunal. Following the reasons in that application, the present application was also rejected.

3.

Now, it appears that against the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting ITA No. 145 of 1990, the department approached this Court under Section 256(2) of the Act by filing ITA 1 of 1995. The said application was rejected by this Court.

4.

In our opinion therefore, it cannot be said that a question of law arises from the decision of the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court. Hence, this application is rejected.

*****

Amp/-

More judgments on Section 256

All 55 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →