THE C.I.T.,NASHIK vs. SMT.VIJAYA V.KAVEKAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/154/1999HC Bombay06 March 2007Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under Section 263. The Tribunal's decision was based on the High Court's own judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) and instructions from the CBDT. The court found that the issue was squarely covered by these precedents. Consequently, the Rule issued in the applications was discharged, and all applications were disposed of. The operative direction was to discharge the rule and dispose of the applications, effectively upholding the ITAT's decision to set aside the CIT's Section 263 order. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (petitioner) filed applications before the Bombay High Court challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Smt. Vijaya V. Karvekar. The assessment years involved are 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT relied on a High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. and a CBDT Circular. The petitioner's counsel appeared, while the respondent was unrepresented. The High Court admitted the applications on specific questions of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue? The petitioner argued that the AO's order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 when the assessment order passed by the AO was in violation of the Board’s instruction No.1617 dated 18/5/1985 and also it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue? The petitioner contended that the AO's assessment order violated a specific CBDT instruction and was detrimental to the revenue, thus justifying the CIT's Section 263 revision. The respondent did not present any arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.154 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.154 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.154 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.155 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.155 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.155 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.157 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.157 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.157 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.158 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.158 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.158 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Petitioner. V/s. Smt. Vijaya V.Karvekar ..Respondent. Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Ms.P.P.Bhosle for petitioner in all the applications. None for the respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The above applications were admitted on the following question of law:- 1. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the order passed by the A.O. cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue ? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order U/s.263 passed by the CIT when the assessment order passed by the A.O. was in violation of the Board’s instruction No.1617 dated 18/5/1985 and also it was prejudicial to CNR No : HCBM020055031999 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:03

- = : 2 : = - the interest of revenue ? 2. The above applications pertain to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-88, respectively. 3. The Tribunal had set aside the order under section 263 by relying on the Judgment of our High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Gabriel India Ltd. Gabriel India Ltd. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 I.T.R.108 203 I.T.R.108 203 I.T.R.108 and also acted upon the instructions contained C.B.D.T. Circular. 4. Since the issue is squarely covered, Rule stands discharged. 5. All the applications are disposed of. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:03

- = : 3 : = -

Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:03 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →