Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 291 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- BHARAT SURYODAYA MILLS CO LTDVersus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner MR BB NAIK WITH MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 19/01/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT(Per J.N.Bhatt, J.) When the matter was called out, again, today, none appeared for and on behalf of the applicant, whereas, learned counsel Mr B.B.Naik for the respondent was present. For our opinion, the following question has learned counsel Mr B.B.Naik for the respondent was present. For our opinion, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee company: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the disallowance of part provision of Rs.4,64,400/- out of provisions of bonus Rs.8,40,000/- made in the books of account on the basis of the legal liabilities on the date of closing the books of accounts ?" It is reported by the Office that notice has already been served on the assessee. Despite that, it chose not to appear and assist the Court, presumably, because the assessee may not, now, be inquisitive to have a judicial opinion of this Court, upon the question referred to, at its instance. Again, this reference is very old and is almost as old as 16 years. In the circumstances, this Court has to raise its hands in helplessness from dealing with the reference sent to us for our opinion in absence of the assessee's appearance and assistance, if not apathy or indifference. In the result, the reference deserves the only fate of rejection in default. Accordingly, the reference shall stand disposed of as not answered. ����.... (vjn)