SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1839

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
National Faceless Assessment Centre (Formerly Known As National E-Assessment Centre) & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Mantra Industries Limited - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1936 Of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4906/2022)
Decided On : 21-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Balbir Singh, A.S.G., Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Adv., Mrs. Praveena Gautam, Adv., Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv., Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv., Chinmayee Chandra, Adv., Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Devendra H. Jain, Adv., Mr. Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Mr. Rajat Mittal, AOR, , Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv., Mr. Ishan Nagr, Adv., Mr. Prateek Khandelwal, Adv., M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR, Mr. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vishal Kalra, Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Gautam, AOR, , Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv., Mr. Sunil Mittal, Adv., Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 144B(9) - Special Leave Petition challenging High Court's order expunging observations - High Court had set aside an Assessment Order relying on a provision that was subsequently omitted - The Revenue is permitted to file a review application to address the omission before the High Court. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The appeal was preferred by the Revenue against the High Court's judgment that quashed an Assessment Order based on a now-omitted provision of the Income Tax Act. The appeal sought to expunge unwarranted observations from the High Court's decision.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court directed the Revenue to file a review application before the High Court regarding the later omission, allowing for the High Court to consider it on its merits without concern for limitation, while also expunging specific unwarranted observations from the High Court’s order.

Issues: The primary issues concerned the validity of the High Court's reliance on an obsolete provision and whether the Revenue could rectify this through a review application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the observations made by the High Court were unnecessary and warranted expunging, while also allowing the Revenue to address the legal impact of the omitted provision through appropriate channels.

Result: The observations in para 9 of the High Court’s order were expunged, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. leave granted for appeal against high court's judgment (Para 1 , 2)
2. issuance of observations regarding omitted law (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's opinion on unwarranted observations (Para 5)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1625/2021, the present Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the Revenue, insofar as to expunge the observations made in para 9.

3. Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the Revenue has also tried to make the submission on merits of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the Assessment Order relying upon subsection (9) of Section 144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short “the Act”). However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee has pointed out that the present Special Leave Petition has been preferred only for the purpose of expunging the remarks made by the High Court in para 9.

4. Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the Revenue has pointed out that subsequently sub-section (9) of Section 144B of the Act has been omitted w.e.f 01.04.2021 and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the Assessment Order relying up on subsection (9) of Section 144B of the Act is unsustainable and the aforesaid being pure question of law either the same may be permitted to be agitated before this Court or the Revenue may be permitted to file a review application before the High Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the question of law proposed in the present Special Leave Petition and the grounds stated in the appeal memo, it appears that the present Special Leave Petition has been preferred only against the observations made in para 9 of the impugned judgment and order. However, as sub-section (9) of Section 144B of the Act has been omitted subsequently and which was not before the High Court, we permit the Revenue to file a review application before the High Court and to point out the subsequent development and omission of sub-section (9) of Section 144B of the Act and as and when such a review application is filed within a period of six weeks from today, the High Court to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits and without raising the issue with respect to limitation, however, subject to giving an opportunity to the assessee. So far as the observations made in para 9 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are concerned, we are of the opinion that the observations made in para 9 are unwarranted and not required. Accordingly, the observations made in para 9 of the impugned order are ordered to be expunged.

With this, the present Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, in terms of the above.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top