Kanubhai Babubhai Chavda V. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR/44/1990

AI Insights

The case involves Kanubhai Babubhai Chavda, the petitioner, against the Commissioner of Income Tax, concerning the classification of capital gains from the sale of agricultural land for the assessment year 1981-82. The primary legal questions revolved around whether the capital gains should be classified as revenue under section 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the precedence of judicial decisions from different High Courts. The Gujarat High Court had to decide whether to follow its own precedent or that of the Bombay High Court, which had addressed similar issues but with different conclusions. The Supreme Court's decision in a related case provided a binding resolution, leading the Gujarat High Court to rule in favor of the revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2001] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795826 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2001
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Manubhai A Sheth vs. Bombay High Court, Nadirsha A Mulla vs. Bombay High Court, Ambalal Maganlal vs. Gujarat High Court, Singhai Rameshkumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B B NAIK; MANISH BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: K A PUJ
• Keywords: Agricultural Land; Capital Gain; Income Tax; Revenue
• Section: 2.1

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 44 of 1990 with INCOME TAX REFERENCE Nos 41 and 43 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 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 @ KANUBHAI BABUBHAI CHAVDA Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 44 of 1990 MR KA PUJ for Petitioner No. 1 MR BB NAIK with MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 18/09/2001 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) In these References at the instance of the assessee, the following three questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court in respect of assessment year 1981-82 :- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in stating that it was unable to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A Sheth (128 ITR 87) in preference to a binding decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambalal Maganlal (98 ITR 237) particularly when the appellant put a stress on the point that the capital gain arising on the sale of Agricultural land was revenue u/s.2 (1) of the Income Tax Act, Bombay High Court in the cases of Manubhai A. Sheth and Nadirsha A Mulla (154 ITR 629) which point was never discussed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambalal Maganlal ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambalal Maganlal (98 ITR 237) could be said to have covered the contention of the appellant that the capital gain arising out of the sale of agricultural land was revenue under sub-section (1) of sec. (2) of I.T. Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case capital gain of Rs.23,200/- arising out of the sale of agricultural land is revenue under sub-section (1) of section (2) of I.T. Act, 1961? 2. We have heard Mr. K.A. Puj learned counsel for the applicant -assessee, and Mr. B.B. Naik learned counsel for the revenue. 3. The learned counsel for the parties fairly state that the controversy raised herein is concluded in favour of the revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Singhai Rameshkumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 247 ITR 150. 4. We accordingly answer question No.1 in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 5. We accordingly answer question No.2 also in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 6. Our answer to question No.3 is in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 7. The References accordingly stand disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. Shah,J) (D.A. Mehta,J) zgs/- "