Gujarat High Court Judgments — 2019

The High Court held that since it was an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which stipulates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant did not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would have the liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Revenue) in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. This circular mandates that no appeal shall be filed before the High Court where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-, and it has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The reasoning was based on the admitted position between the parties regarding the tax effect being less than the prescribed monetary limit. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The Court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant could seek revival of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. This decision was based on the admitted fact that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and in light of Circular No. 3/2018 issued by the CBDT. This circular mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal under these circumstances. The Tribunal granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason. No other issues were decided on merits.

The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the admitted position that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Court relied on Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the CBDT. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court of Gujarat, acknowledging the admitted tax effect of less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The decision was made in direct reliance on Circular No. 3/2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular stipulates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and has retrospective applicability. The Court noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was otherwise not applicable, the appellant would have the liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court held that since the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding this limit should be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable, the appeal would not be pressed. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The Court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court held that since it was an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the Revenue did not press the appeal. The appeal was accordingly disposed of as not pressed. The Court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on a procedural/administrative ground.

The High Court held that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. This decision was made in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court. The Court noted that it is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect in this appeal is below this monetary limit. Consequently, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason.

The High Court held that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for assessment year 2011-12, issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is invalid. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) relied on material already on record, and there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the AO had already examined the issue of interest on NPA during the scrutiny assessment and made an addition, indicating a mere change of opinion. The assessment order had also merged with the orders of the CIT(A) and the ITAT. Additionally, the Court found that on merits, the issue was concluded in favour of the assessee by this Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., confirmed by the Supreme Court, meaning the AO could not have formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, the notice was not sustainable.

The High Court held that the controversy involved in the present case was no longer res integra, having been concluded by a decision of the same High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-II v. Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Court noted that the instructions clearly provide for the amortization of premium paid on the acquisition of securities when acquired at a rate higher than the face value, to be amortized over the remaining period of maturity. This was precisely what the Tribunal had directed in the impugned order. The Court found no contrary instructions of the CBDT brought to its notice. Since the instruction in question was issued under section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it would bind the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose out of the Tribunal's order. The appeal was summarily dismissed.

The High Court held that the Tribunal and CIT(A) had recorded concurrent findings of fact. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on the earlier banakhat without material suggesting more land was conveyed was not acceptable. The Tribunal held that the assessee earned profits as per a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding, amounting to Rs. 38,50,000 each. Regarding the VDIS credit, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that once a certificate under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997, is issued, another authority cannot question its contents. The High Court noted that although the search was on January 21, 1997, the notice under Section 158BD was issued after the VDIS declaration. Therefore, the credit for Rs. 38,50,000 disclosed under VDIS 1997 was rightly given. The addition of Rs. 1,64,18,750 was deleted by the CIT(A) as the source of payment was from amounts received from the sale of land, which was accepted by the appellate authorities. The High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the appeal, answering the questions in favour of the assessee.

The High Court held that the respondent-assessee is identically situated to the assessee in Tax Appeal No.108 of 2008, which was decided by a judgment and order of even date. In that appeal, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, and the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in the judgment and order of even date in Tax Appeal No.108 of 2008, the present appeal was also dismissed. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The specific findings on each issue, the reasoning, and the ratio decidendi are not detailed as the decision is based on the precedent set by the judgment in the connected appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the petitioner, being a cooperative society dealing in different villages and not a member of respondent No. 4 society, cannot be considered an aggrieved person. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner (B. B. Shroff), where the amendment extended the area of operation into the petitioner society's domain, leading to unhealthy competition. In the present case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the business of grain by respondent No. 4 would adversely affect their rights. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner did not object to respondent No. 4's nomination before the Election Officer at the relevant time. The Court also found that the contention regarding inclusion in the Voters' List for the APMC election was not an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference under Article 226. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the Additional Registrar's observation that the appeal was not maintainable. The petition was dismissed.