COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JABAL INDUSTRIES

ITR/94/1984HC GujaratGJHC24011768198420 February 1997Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred a question of law to the High Court concerning assessment year 1977-78. The assessee, Jabal Industries, was a firm registered under the Income Tax Act. A partner, Smt. Tilottama Chandravadan Laskari, was a partner in her individual capacity and also represented the interest of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) as its Karta, a role previously held by her deceased husband. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, considering the firm's registration order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, as he believed Smt. Laskari could not be a partner in two capacities. The CIT intended to withdraw the registration despite contrary Gujarat High Court decisions, citing pending Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The ITAT had set aside the CIT's order under Section 263.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Revenue must fail on the ground concerning the second part of the question, rendering the first part academic. Section 263 of the Income Tax Act requires the Commissioner to find an order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Court referred to its decision in C.I.T. v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh (215 ITR 81), stating that an order is prejudicial to revenue only if legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has not been or cannot be realized. In this case, the revenue had been realized by treating the firm as registered. The Court noted that if withdrawal of registration would lead to the firm being treated as unregistered, the prejudice to revenue would depend on which status yields more tax. The Commissioner's order did not demonstrate application of mind to this aspect, failing to establish a link between the perceived error and the loss of revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the exercise of power under Section 263 was bad. The question referred to the Court was answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Smt. Tilottama Chandravadan Laskari could be a partner in the firm in two capacities and therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in passing an order U/s.263 of the Income-tax Act? Assessee's Contentions: - Smt. Tilottama Chandravadan Laskari could be a partner in two capacities, as per the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT, Gujarat II v. Budhalal Amulakhdas (129 ITR 97). - Assessments of partners were completed prior to the firm's registration, making it impossible to reassess the firm as unregistered, citing the Gujarat High Court decision in Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat III (128 ITR 747). Revenue's Contentions: - The CIT believed Smt. Tilottama Chandravadan Laskari could not be a partner in two capacities. - The CIT considered the order of registration erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, despite the Gujarat High Court's ruling, stating that a Special Leave Petition was contemplated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 183,Section 168

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 94 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. ============================================================ 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?

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,474 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →