ZAVERCHAND GAEKWAD LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (4)

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/867/2009HC GujaratGJHC24040925200914 September 2022Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. had already answered the substantial question of law concerning the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel stated that since the second substantial question of law was decided in favor of the assessee by this Court, they would not press the first substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee. The operative direction was to allow the appeal. No orders as to costs were made. The pending application was consigned to record.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Tax Appeal filed by Zaverchand Gaekwad Limited against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), concerning Assessment Year 2002-03. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core dispute revolves around the Assessing Officer's justification for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent invocation of Section 55A to refer the property's fair market value as of April 1, 1981, to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The appellant is the assessee, and the respondent is the Income Tax Department (Revenue).

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for re-opening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for ascertaining the Fair Market Value of the property as on 01.04.1981? Contentions: The assessee, through its counsel, submitted that in light of substantial question of law no. 2 being answered in its favor by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl., it would not press substantial question of law no. 1. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue on these issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 55A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/867/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 867 of 2009 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 867 of 2009

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI ============================================= 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 or any order made thereunder ? ============================================= ZAVERCHAND GAEKWAD LIMITED Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (4) ============================================= Appearance: MR BANDISH SOPARKAR for MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

Date : 14/09/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR) 1. In this appeal following substantial question of law has Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/867/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2022 been raised :- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for re-opining of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for ascertaining the Fair Market Value of the property as on 01.04.1981?” 2. The co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl., reported in 367 ITR 238 has answered the substantial question of law framed in the instant appeal, namely in relation to the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in light of substantial question of law no. 2 having been answered by this Court in favour of the appellant, he would not press, substantial question of law no. 1 framed in the appeal memorandum as well as by this Court. His submission is placed on record. Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/867/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2022 4. Since, substantial question of law framed in this appeal, stands fairly covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of Apex Court in Gauranginiben’s case referred to supra, this appeal is allowed by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. No orders as to costs. Pending application stands consigned to record as it would not survive for consideration. (ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →