COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S GURUKURPA DEVELOPERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration. The Court noted that the Revenue had previously filed Tax Appeal No. 824 of 2008 against the ITAT's order dated August 31, 2004, which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on July 28, 2011. However, the judgment also mentions that the ITAT rejected the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application on January 7, 2011, stating that the Revenue's earlier Tax Appeal only approved the question of levy of surcharge under Section 113, and other questions raised by the Revenue did not find favor. The High Court found that the totality of circumstances did not warrant approval of the Miscellaneous Application, leading to its dismissal. The operative direction was to dismiss the Tax Appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee is M/s Gurukrupa Developers and the appellant is the Commissioner of Income Tax-IV. The dispute pertains to assessment year(s) not explicitly stated. The challenge is to an order dated January 7, 2011, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which rejected the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application. The ITAT had initially passed an order on August 31, 2004, partly allowing the assessee's appeal. Subsequently, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application requesting recall of the August 31, 2004 order, citing non-consideration of the Gujarat High Court's decision in Abhishek Corporation v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 158 CTR 374. The ITAT recalled its earlier order on December 3, 2004. The Revenue then filed a Miscellaneous Application on August 30, 2005, seeking reversal of the recall order, which was rejected by the impugned order.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has the power to recall an order passed after considering all facts and judicial pronouncements, in the name of rectifying any mistake? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in rejecting the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, which stated that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Abhishek Corporation (158 CTR 374) had been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the order dated December 3, 2004, recalling the order dated August 31, 2004, required reversal? Contentions: Assessee: Relied on the decision in Abhishek Corporation v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 158 CTR 374, arguing that it was not considered in the original order and requested rectification. Revenue: Argued that the Gujarat High Court's decision in Abhishek Corporation was set aside by the Supreme Court, and therefore, the ITAT's order recalling its earlier order based on that decision was erroneous and required reversal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TAXAP/1069/2011 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1069 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Sd/- ========================================= 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV - Appellant Versus M/S GURUKURPA DEVELOPERS - Opponent ========================================= Appearance : MS PAURAMI B SHETH for Appellant. None for Opponent. ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 31/08/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
TAXAP/1069/2011 2/3 JUDGMENT We have heard Mr. Paurami Sheth, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 2. This Tax Appeal has been filed on the following two proposed substantial questions of law :- “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has power to recall the order which was passed after considering all facts and judicial pronouncements in the name to rectify any mistake ? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in rejecting the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue wherein it was stated that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Abhishek Corporation (158 CTR 374) has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that order dated 3.12.2004 passed by Appellate Tribunal recalling the order dated 31.08.2004, on the ground that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Abhishek Corporation was not considered in order dated 31.08.2004, required to be reversed ?” 3. We need not go into the facts as in this case, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on 31.8.2004, against the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed Tax Appeal No.824 of 2008 which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court on 28.7.2011. 4. In the meantime, the assessee filed Misc. Application pleading before the Tribunal that the decision relied by the assessee in the case of Abhishek Corporation v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 158 CTR 374 has not been considered by the Tribunal and requested the Tribunal to rectify the said mistake. The
TAXAP/1069/2011 3/3 JUDGMENT Tribunal accepted the request of the assessee and by its order dated 3.12.2004 recalled its earlier order dated 31.8.2004. 5. Against the said order dated 3.12.2004, the Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application on 30.8.2005 which has been rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 7.1.2001 on the ground that the Revenue has earlier filed Tax Appeal No.824 of 2008 against the order dated 31.8.2004 of the Tribunal and in the said appeal, this Court only approved the question of levy of surcharge u/s.113 and other questions referred by the Revenue did not find favour. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the totality of the circumstances very much demand not to approve this Miscellaneous Application and hence, the said Miscellaneous Application was dismissed. 6. We do not find that any substantial questions of law arise for the consideration of this Court. This Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/- [N. V. ANJARIA, J.] Savariya
More judgments on Section 113
- Mahendra Singh Dharampal & Co., Udaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2, UdaipurITA 229/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
- Sab Developers Private Limited, Chandigarh vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), ChandigarhITA 1071/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12
- M/S. Gaurav Investments, Mumbai vs DCIT, CC-8(1), MumbaiITA 5184/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
- Kuber Auto General Finance & Leasing Lts (… vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), New DelhiITSSA 1/DEL/2022[BP 01.04.1987 to 08.05.1997]Status: Disposed14 May 2024
- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Abhisar Buildwell P. LtdCIVIL APPEAL No. 6580/202124 Apr 2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026