COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMI CEMENT DISTRIBUTORA (P) LTD.

ITR/226/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020302199421 November 2005Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the ITAT had recorded various findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record. In the absence of any question of law arising from the ITAT's order, the High Court stated it was not bound to answer the references made by the Tribunal. The Court observed that the ITAT had proceeded in a "wrong manner" by considering the departmental appeal on merits before deciding the appeal against the Section 263 order, contrary to chronological order. Consequently, the High Court returned both references unanswered. The operative direction was that the references stand disposed of accordingly, with no specific relief granted or deleted, and no issue left undecided as the references themselves were not answered on merits.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT), Rajkot, initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against Laxmi Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 1985-86. The CIT passed an order on March 15, 1989, holding the original assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, specifically concerning the applicability of Section 37(3B) of the Act. The assessee challenged this revision order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Simultaneously, a departmental appeal on merits was also before the ITAT, as the assessment in the second round had been framed. The ITAT, by a consolidated order dated October 18, 1993, allowed the assessee's appeal against the Section 263 order and dismissed the departmental appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the CIT under Section 263 of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission etc. paid to sales organisers was not caught by the mischief of Section 37(3A)/37(3B) of the Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against the Section 263 order and dismissed the departmental appeal on merits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue regarding the applicability of Section 37(3B) of the Act. The Revenue had the Commissioner's order under Section 263 and a departmental appeal on merits before the Tribunal. The judgment does not explicitly state the Revenue's arguments before the High Court regarding the reference questions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 37(3A),Section 37(3B),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/54/1995 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.54 of 1995 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.226 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether

this case

involves

a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ======================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s) Versus LAXMI CEMENT DISTRIBUTORS PVT.LTD. - Respondent(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 21/11/2005 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Pe

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 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →