COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. HAZARAT PIR-SHAH-E-ALAM ROZA TRUST

ITR/33/1989

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income-Tax as the petitioner and Hazrat Pir-Shah-e-Alam Roza Trust as the respondent, concerning income tax assessments for the years 1978-79 and 1981-82. The questions referred to the High Court by the revenue pertained to the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decisions on various tax-related issues, including the re-assessment directions and exemptions claimed under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The court referenced its earlier decision in ITR No.135 of 1988, which had addressed similar issues for the same assessee, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2002] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676054 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2002
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITR No.135 of 1988
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M I PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: B B NAIK
• Keywords: Assessment years; Exemption; Income Tax; Maintenance Expenditure
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 33 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. 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? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HAZARAT PIR-SHAH-E-ALAM ROZA TRUST -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 33 of 1989 MR BB NAIK for Petitioner No. 1 MR MI PATEL for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date of decision: 11/07/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) In this Reference at the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred for our opinion in respect of assessment years 1978-79 and 1981-82:- (i) \"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order made by the C.I.T. (Appeals) directing the I.T.O. to reframe the assessment keeping in view the directions given by the Appellate Tribunal in orders dated 17.4.85 in I.T.A. Nos.2196 to 2203/Ahd/1976-77?\" (ii) \"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee relating to complex of building and lands at Rasulabad and lands at Vasana, Isanpur and Sarsa?\" (iii) \"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the income of the Roza was exigible to exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act?\" (iv) \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee relating to expenditure on the maintenance of the Sajjadanasin and his family?\" 2. We have heard Mr BB Naik, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant- revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent- assessee. 3. In the statement of case, the Tribunal has noted that the Tribunal had already drawn up an elaborate statement of case in respect of assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1973-74 in Reference Application Nos.402 to 409 of 1985 which was numbered as ITR No.135 of 1988. 4. At the hearing of this reference, our attention is invited to the decision dated 11-4-2002 of this Court in ITR No.135 of 1988 in case of the same assessee, which decision is also reported in (2002) 175 CTR (Guj) 66. The aforesaid decision was in case of the same assessee, relating to assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1973-74. 5. Having perused the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of this very assessee, we find that this Court answered identical questions for the aforesaid relevant assessment years in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, our answer to each of the four questions set out hereinabove is in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. Shah,J) (K.A. Puj,J) zgs/- "