Remanded

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) v. M/S Union Bank of India

Bombay HC18 Jul 2016IRXA/1/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This БЕВ appeal challenged the ITAT dismissal of the Revenue's appeal regarding interest tax inclusion. The High Court held that the ITAT wrongly relied on an earlier order set aside by this Court. Consequently, both appeals were restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. No order as to costs. No substantive determination on interest tax inclusion was made in this order. (59 words) ]

What did the court decide?

Both Appeals disposed of; entire appeals restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits. No order as to costs.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) Vs M/S Union… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sbw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INTEREST TAX APPEAL NO.1 OF 2014 WITH INTEREST TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2014

¶5

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit)

¶6

..Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Union Bank of India

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Mr. A. R. Malhotra a/w N. A. Kazi for the Appellant. Ms. Nupur Awasthi i/b. M/s. Consulta Juris for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 18^th JULY, 2016

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

These two Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,

¶15

1961 (the Act) challenges the common impugned order dated 16^th January, March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order is in respect of Assessment Years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. These two appeals relate to Assessment Year 196-97 and 1997-98.

¶16

The Revenue has also filed an appeal in respect of Assessment Year 1998-99, however the office objections with regard to it have not yet been removed. Therefore the appeal for Assessment Year 1998-99 would be considered only on it being allotted a regular number on removal of office

¶17

objections.

¶18

The Revenue being aggrieved, raise the following reframed question of law for our consideration:-

¶19

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Revenue's appeal by following its order dated 27^th February, 2007 in respect of A.Y. 1999-2000 when the same had been set aside on 29^th November, 2011 by this Court in Revenue's appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.6458 of 2010?”

¶20

The appeal is admitted as it raises a substantial question of law.

¶21

As the dispute is within a very limited compass, at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal itself is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶22

The impugned order of the Tribunal while dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the issue of whether interest tax collected has to be included as chargeable interest for the purposes of tax under the Interest Tax Act, 1974 solely placed reliance upon its order passed on 27^th February, 2007 in respect of Interest Tax Appeal No.60/Mum/2004 relating to A.Y. 19992000. In fact it extensively quotes from the order dated 27^th February, 2007. Mr. Abhishekh Kumar Singh, the Assessing Officer has filed an affidavit dated 24^th June, 2016 bringing on record the fact that order dated 27^th February, 2007 passed by the Tribunal for A.Y. 1999-2000 has

¶23

been set aside by this Court on 29^th November, 2011 in Revenue's Appeal No.6458 of 2010 and restored to the Tribunal for final consideration. However, it appears that the counsel appearing for the parties had not brought it to the notice of the Tribunal that the order dated 27^th February, 2007 which has been extensively quoted from was quashed and set aside by this Court by its order dated 29^th November, 2011 and restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal could not have placed reliance upon the observation/finding rendered by it in its order dated 27^th February, 2007 when the same was not in existence when the impugned order was passed as the same had been set aside by this Court on 29^th November, 2011.

¶24

In the above view, the question as reframed for our consideration is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Appellant-Revenue and against the Respondent-Assessee. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, the entire appeals are restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits.

¶25

Both Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶26

wadhwa

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) v. M/S Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) v. M/S Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alle Bala Nagi Reddy Vs the Income Tax Settlement Commission and Ors.

Daulat B.Saraf Vs the Asstt.Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S.Dodsal Ltd.and Ors.

The C.I.T.B.C-I Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Iii, Mumbai Vs M/S Prime Developers

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-Iii Vs M/S. Prime Developers