Disposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd. v. State Bank of Hyderabad.

Telangana HC6 Feb 2014RC/128/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A referred order answers a question of law regarding the allowability of originally unclaimed expenditure in reassessment proceedings. The Court held that the assessee was precluded from agitating the claim and not entitled to deduction, aligning with the Supreme Court judgment in Sun Engineering Works that reversed prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

Question of law answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee; case dismissed.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd. Vs State Bank of Hyderabad. — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

R.C. No.128 OF 1999

¶5

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶6

At the instance of revenue, the following question of law said to be arising from the common order of the Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos.858 to 862/Hyd/1982, for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1959-60 and 1961-62, is referred for the opinion of this Court.

¶7

2. Question of law is set out below:

¶8

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is precluded from agitating the claim relating to gratuity pension fund and not entitled to deduction in the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, specially when in the assessment proceedings relating to subsequent reassessment years the said claims were allowed?”

¶9

3. The controversy in issue was with respect to allowability of certain expenditure in the process of reassessment which were originally not claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal following its earlier judgment in assessee’s own case reported in State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax^[1] had allowed the said expenses.

¶10

4. Now the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reversed the judgment of this court reported in State Bank of India (1 supra) by the judgment reported in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sun Engineering Works Private Limited^[2] . Therefore, in the light of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question of law is required to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

¶11

5. Accordingly, the Referred Case is disposed of answering the question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No order as to

¶12

costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Referred Case shall stand disposed of.

¶13

______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J

¶14

_____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶15

Date:06.02.2014.

¶16

Gk.