Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Bababhai Pitamberdas (Huf) ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant filed three applications (Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1975) before the High Court under Section 236(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to state a case and refer a specified question of law to the High Court. The question concerned the validity of a notice dated 10 April 1962 issued under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 after the 1961 Act had come into force, and the consequent proceedings and orders.

On 8 March 1976 the High Court dismissed the applications, holding that the issue was already concluded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Banarsi Debi v. ITO. Aggrieved, the appellant obtained special-leave and brought the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the notice served on 10 April 1962 under Section 34 of the 1922 Act, and all subsequent proceedings and orders, were invalid after the Income-tax Act, 1961 had come into force.

Whether the High Court and the ITAT were justified in treating the above question as finally settled by the Supreme Court decision in Banarsi Debi v. ITO.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Banarsi Debi v. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100; AIR 1964 SC 1742	Earlier interpretation concerning issuance of notices under the repealed 1922 Act after enactment of the 1961 Act.	The High Court and ITAT had relied on this case to reject the reference; the Supreme Court found that reliance misplaced because the decision was later explained and its scope limited.
R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96; 166 ITR 163	Clarified that the meaning of the word “issued” can vary with statutory context; specifically discussed Section 297(2)(d)(i) of the 1961 Act.	The Supreme Court cited this judgment to show that the question in the present appeals involves statutory interpretation not concluded by Banarsi Debi.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Banarsi Debi v. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100; AIR 1964 SC 1742

Earlier interpretation concerning issuance of notices under the repealed 1922 Act after enactment of the 1961 Act.

The High Court and ITAT had relied on this case to reject the reference; the Supreme Court found that reliance misplaced because the decision was later explained and its scope limited.

R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96; 166 ITR 163

Clarified that the meaning of the word “issued” can vary with statutory context; specifically discussed Section 297(2)(d)(i) of the 1961 Act.

The Supreme Court cited this judgment to show that the question in the present appeals involves statutory interpretation not concluded by Banarsi Debi.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court concluded that neither the ITAT nor the High Court was correct in treating the matter as finally settled by Banarsi Debi. The Court observed that:

Banarsi Debi had been subsequently considered and explained in R.K. Upadhyaya, which emphasised that the term “issued” must be construed in its statutory context.

The present controversy squarely concerns the meaning of “issued” in Section 297(2)(d)(i) of the 1961 Act, a point not conclusively decided in Banarsi Debi.

Because the interpretation of that term affects the validity of the 10 April 1962 notice and ensuing proceedings, a genuine question of law arises from the ITAT’s order and deserves judicial consideration.

Accordingly, the Court found that the High Court and ITAT erred in refusing to state a case and refer the question.

Holding and Implications

Appeals Allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the High Court to require the ITAT to state a case and refer the identified question of law for adjudication. No order as to costs.

Implications: The ruling re-opens judicial examination of the validity of reassessment notices issued under the repealed 1922 Act after commencement of the 1961 Act, confirming that prior decisions do not automatically foreclose fresh interpretative questions when later authority clarifies the law. No new substantive precedent on the merits was created; the decision primarily affects the procedural right to a reference.

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Bababhai Pitamberdas (Huf) .

Order

1. These appeals by special leave are against the common order dated March 8, 1976 rejecting three application Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1975 made by the appellant under Section 236(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an order directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order for the decision of the High Court. The question of law is as under:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that notice served on April 10, 1962 under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, after the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings commenced in pursuance of the said notices and the orders passed therein were invalid and bad in law?”

2. The High Court rejected these applications taking the view that the matter was concluded by a decision of this Court as indicated in the Tribunal's order rejecting the appellant's applications made under Section 256(1) of the Act wherein it was stated that the question of law is concluded by the decision in Banarsi Debi v. Ito (1964) 53 ITR 100, AIR 1964 SC 1742.

3. Having heard both sides we are of the opinion that the High Court as well as the Tribunal were in error in taking the view that the question of law is concluded in the present case by the decision in Banarsi Debi (1964) 53 ITR 100, AIR 1964 SC 1742. The decision of this Court in Banarsi Debi (1964) 53 ITR 100, AIR 1964 SC 1742 was considered and explained in a subsequent decision of this Court in R.K Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel . (1987) 3 SCC 96, (1987) 166 ITR 163. It was pointed out that the meaning of the word “issued” is to be construed in the context and the setting in which it occurs so that its meaning may vary depending on the context. The question involved for decision in the present case is the meaning of the word “issued” occurring in Section 297(2)(d)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961. This question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order and cannot be treated as concluded by the decision of this Court in Banarsi Debi (1964) 53 ITR 100, AIR 1964 SC 1742 as stated by the Tribunal as well as the High Court.

4. For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The High Court is required to direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer to it the aforesaid question of law for its decision.

5. No costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1591-93(NT) of 1977, decided on August 27, 1992

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Bababhai Pitamberdas (Huf) .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Bababhai Pitamberdas (Huf) .

Comments