Surat Dist Coop Spinning Mills Ltd V. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR/182/1986

AI Insights

The case involves Surat District Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd. as the applicant-assessee and the Commissioner of Income Tax as the respondent. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred three questions to the High Court concerning the interpretation and application of various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly relating to the order of statutory deductions and the jurisdiction under Section 263. The Supreme Court had previously addressed similar issues, which guided the High Court's decision to affirm the Tribunal's decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2001] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795838 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2001
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANISH BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Assessment; Deductions; Income Tax; Industrial Undertaking; Jurisdiction
• Section: 263; 72; 80M; 33; 32(2); 256(2); 80J; 80K; 80MM; 80N

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 182 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE 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 ------------------------------------------------------------- SURAT DIST COOP SPINNING MILLSLTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 182 of 1986 MR JP SHAH for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 10/07/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE) 1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the following three questions have been referred to this Court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as \"the Act\"), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench `B'. (i) \"Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the case of Cloth Traders Co. (P) Ltd. (118 I.T.R. 243 - Supreme Court, had no application because that case did refer to Sections 80M, 80K, 80MM and 80N but not touch Section 80J, while relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Cambay Electricity Co. Ltd. (115 I.T.R. 84) even though that case also did not touch Section 80J, but only referred to Section 80E?\" (ii) \"Whether the Tribunal had erred in not holding that the gross total income included profits from the new industrial undertaking, the relief u/s. 80J has to be allowed first in preference to the order statutory deduction u/s. 32(2), 33 or 72?\" (iii) \"Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax had jurisdiction to initiate Section u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the impugned order of assessment was made a subject of appeals?\" 2. We have heard learned advocate Shri Manish Shah appearing for the applicant-assessee and learned advocate Shri Bharat Naik for the respondent. 3. Upon perusal of the statement of the case it is very clear that all the three questions have been answered by the Honourable Supreme Court during the pendency of the reference. 4. So far as first and second questions are concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court has answered similar questions in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd., 224 ITR 604. Looking to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said case, we answer both the questions in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 5. So far as the third question is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court has opined in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., 231 ITR 50, that the Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, even though the order of the assessing officer was made subject matter of an appeal. Accordingly, we also answer the third question in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 10.7.2001. (A.R. Dave, J.) (D.A. Mehta, J.) /phalguni/ "