THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHANDRAKANT DAHYABHAI PATEL (HUF)

PDF · subscribers

ITA/361/1999HC GujaratGJHC24025100199927 September 2000Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE D.M.DHARMADHIKARI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing counsel for both the department and the assessee, and perusing the ITAT's order and the order refusing to refer proposed questions, was of the opinion that a substantial question of law did arise. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application. The Tribunal was directed to prepare a statement of case and send it to the High Court on the specific question of law identified. The rule was made absolute, but without any order as to costs. The High Court did not decide the substantive issue of the land transfer's timing itself but rather the procedural aspect of whether a reference on that issue was warranted.

What were the facts?

This case involves an application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Chandrakant Dahyabhai Patel (HUF). The dispute concerns the assessment year 1994-95, with the relevant period being 1993-94. The core of the matter is the timing of a land transfer. The Revenue challenges the ITAT's decision that the transfer did not fall within the 1993-94 period. This decision was based on a deed of ratification dated April 18, 1996, and the handing over of possession for building activities in 1993 pursuant to an oral agreement in that year. The High Court is considering whether to direct the ITAT to state a case on a specific question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the transfer of land would not fall in the period 1993-94 relevant to assessment year 1994-95 with reference to the deed of ratification dated 18.4.1996 and handing over of the possession of land for building activities in 1993 as per oral agreement in that year? The Revenue's contention, as implied by their application to the High Court, is that the ITAT erred in its determination of the assessment year for the land transfer. They likely argue that the oral agreement and possession in 1993 should have been considered as the relevant period for the transfer, irrespective of the later deed of ratification. The assessee's arguments are not explicitly recorded in this judgment, but their position would be that the ITAT's finding, which they presumably support, is correct. The ITAT's order is the subject of the challenge.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 361 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

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

-------------------------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus CHANDRAKANT DAHYABHAI PATEL (HUF) -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR B. B. Naik with Mr. MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR SN SOPARKAR for Respondent No. 1

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

CORAM : CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

Date of decision: 27/09/2000

ORAL JUDGEMENT

After hearing learned counsel for the department and assessee, and on perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal deciding the appeal as also the order refusing to refer the proposed questions , we are of the opinion that on the proposed question No.1 in this memo of application, the following question of law does arise.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the transfer of land would not fall in the period 1993-94 relevant to assessment year 1994-95 with reference to the deed of ratification dated 18.4.1996 and handing over of the possession of land for building activities in 1993 as per oral agreement in that year?"

We, therefore, allow this application. The Tribunal is directed to prepare a statement of case and send it to this court on the above question No.1 proposed in this application. Rule is made absolute,but with no order as to costs.

(D. M. Dharmadhikari,C.J.)

(A. R.Dave, J.)

parekh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →