Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1933
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal, A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Insilco Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3976 of 2003
Decided On : 09-08-005
The interpretation and impact of previous court decisions on the admission of appeals under the Income Tax Act.
Headnote:
Income Tax Act - Assessment Year - Court admits appeal for one assessment year but not the other based on interpretation of previous court decisions
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed to the High Court for two assessment years under Section 261-A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court admitted the appeal for the assessment year 1990-1991 but not for the assessment year 1991-1992, based on its interpretation of previous court decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision of the Patna High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, supported the High Court's view on the issue. The appellant's argument that the Ranchi Club case did not lay down the requirement to charge interest under a specific section was not upheld.
Issues: The issues involved the admission of the appeal for the assessment year 1991-1992 and the impact of previous court decisions on the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute raised a question of law requiring consideration, and allowed the appeal on this ground, remanding the matter back to the High Court for the assessment year 1991-1992.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the High Court after admitting the appeal for the assessment year 1991-1992.
JUDGMENT :
The grievance of the appellant is that the High Court, while admitting the appeal in respect of two assessment years under Section 261-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directed that only the appeal relating to the assessment year 1990-1991 would be admitted. As far as the second assessment year 1991-1992 was concerned, the High Court was of the view that the issue had been correctly decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal relying upon the decisions of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1996) 217 ITR 72 and Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1996) 222 ITR 44 as affirmed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209.
2. The appellant has said that the Ranchi Club case was not an authority for the proposition as determined by the High Court and it erred in not admitting the appeal for the assessment year 1991-92. It is said that the decision of the High Court in Ranchi Club did not lay down that interest could not be charged unless the assessment order mentioned the specific section as held by the Tribunal. Therefore, what was affirmed by this Court was not the requirement to charge interest under a specific section. We are unable to uphold this submission, having regard to the clear language of the decision of the Patna High Court. It was without question affirmed by this Court.
3. The second ground on which the appellant has contended that the appeal should not have been admitted is that the law laid down in the Ranchi Club case had been changed by virtue of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala and Ors. (2001) 252 ITR 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand has urged that the decision of the Constitution Bench did not at all affect the earlier affirmation of the Ranchi Club case by this Court. In our opinion the dispute raises a question of law which requires consideration.
4. The appeal is allowed on this short ground and the matter remanded back to the High Court after admitting the appeal for assessment year 1991-92.
Appeal allowed.
