COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. VEPAR

ITR/137/1991

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income-Tax as the petitioner and VEPAR as the respondent, concerning two questions referred by the revenue to the High Court of Gujarat. These questions pertained to the legality of the Appellate Tribunal's decisions on allowing certain office expenses and interest deficits that were initially disallowed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 40-A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was influenced by a precedent set in a similar case (I.T.R. No. 4/1992) for the Assessment Year 1981-82, where the issues were decided in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2003] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 736821 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2003
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: C.I.T. Vs. Mrinalini V. Sarabhai
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R K PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH BHATT
• Keywords: Appellate Tribunal; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Interest Deficit; Office Expenses; Ahmedabad Bench-A
• Section: 40(A)(3); 256(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 137 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA ============================================================ 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus VEPAR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 137 of 1991 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR RK PATEL for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date of decision: 01/07/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE) 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions, arising out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-A, have been referred to this Court under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\"). (1) \"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing office expenses disallowed by the I.T.O. U/s.40-A(3)?\" (2) \"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing interest deficit disallowed by the ITO U/s. 40-A(3)?\" 2. Senior Standing Counsel Shri Manish Bhatt has appeared for the applicant-revenue whereas learned advocate Shri R.K. Patel has appeared for the respondent-assessee. 3. So far as question no.1 is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned advocates that in I.T.R. No. 4/1992 similar legal issues had arisen for Assessment Year 1981-82 and the said legal issues have been decided by this Court by its order dated 1st July, 2003 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the circumstances, we answer the first question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. So far as the second question is concerned, upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any independent findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the said legal issue. However, it appears that the Tribunal has placed reliance on its earlier order passed in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Mrinalini V. Sarabhai, I.T.A. No. 1870/Ahd/1986 and by placing reliance upon the findings of the said order, the Tribunal has come to a particular conclusion. In our opinion, as the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on the facts of another case or on the basis of another assessment year of the same assessee, in absence of the discussion regarding the facts of the relevant assessment year, we would not be in a position to gather facts of the case and, therefore, we decline to answer the second question. The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.R. DAVE,J.) (A.M. KAPADIA,J.) siji "