Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trustno 1 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 228 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- BIPINBHAI VADILAL FAMILY TRUSTNO 1Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 228 of 1991 NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date of decision: 11/02/2004 (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) �In this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the petitioner - assessee, the following question was referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1982-83:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the annual letting value of the property in question was correctly worked out at Rs.18000/- and not Rs.6000/- as claimed by the assessee?" �When the reference is called out for hearing, none appears for the petitioner assessee though served. Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel appears for the revenue. �Though the reference was made at the instance of the assessee in the year 1991, neither paper book is filed nor any one appears for the assessee. Hence we decline to answer the question referred for our opinion. �The reference accordingly stands disposed of for want of prosecution. ����(M.S. Shah, J.) ����(A.M. Kapadia, J.) ���--- (karan)