THE D.C.(IT) (ASSTT.) vs. SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD.

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/253/1999HC GujaratGJHC24025583199924 April 2000Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The Court observed that a similar issue concerning the admissibility of the quantum of commission paid to the sole selling agent had been decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee for an earlier assessment year. Since the Revenue had not challenged that earlier decision by filing a reference application or appeal, the High Court found no reason to interfere. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that the issue was essentially one of fact regarding the quantum of commission, and given the prior ITAT ruling not challenged by the Revenue, no substantial question of law was presented. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Asstt.), Ahmedabad, filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The appeal concerned the assessment year 1988-89. The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs. 37,85,080/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid to selling agents. The High Court noted that a similar issue had arisen in an earlier assessment year, and the ITAT had decided that issue in favour of the assessee, Sayaji Industries Ltd. The Revenue had not filed any reference application or appeal against that earlier decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,85,080/- made on account of commission paid to selling agents? (Question of law and fact, concerning the allowability of commission paid). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through its advocate, argued that the ITAT was not right in deleting the addition. The Revenue's primary contention appears to be that the addition made on account of commission paid to selling agents should have been upheld. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments beyond this general assertion, nor does it cite any specific authorities or precedents relied upon by either party.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

TAX APPEAL No 253 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH

============================================================ 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

1 to 5 No -------------------------------------------------------------- THE D.C.(IT) (ASSTT.) Versus SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR JP SHAH for Respondent No. 1

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH

Date of decision: 24/04/2000

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(per A.R. Dave, J.)

In this appeal, which has been filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Asstt.), Ahmedabad, the following question of law has been raised from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', in ITA NO. 3682/Ahd/1992 dated 11.2.99.

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,85,080/- made on account of commission paid to selling agents?"

We have heard learned advocate Shri BB Naik appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Shri JP Shah appearing for the respondent assessee.

After hearing the concerned advocates and upon perusal of the record, it is clear that there is no dispute to the fact that a similar question had arisen in the earlier assessment year and though the question was decided in favour of the respondent assessee, no reference application or appeal was filed by the present appellant. Answer to the said question has been given in ITA No. 129/Ahd/92 for the Assessment Year 188-89 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B, in its order dated 3.9.98.

Upon perusal of the earlier order referred to hereinabove and more particularly looking at the reasons recorded in para 6.2 of the said order, we are of the view that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal especially because the question is with regard to admissibility of the quantum of commission paid to the sole selling agent. In our opinion, no question of law arises in the matter and therefore we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. _____ (hn)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →