C.I.T., JABALPUR vs. M/S.DURGA ENGG.& FOUNDRY WORKS

C.A. No.-004089-004089 - 1998Supreme Court03 August 20004 pages
For Petitioner: SUSHMA SURI
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

For assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the Income Tax Officer made additions to the income of Durga Engineering and Foundry Works (assessee), a partnership firm, for unexplained cash credits in the name of partners. The Commissioner upheld these assessments. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) initially allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the assessment orders and restoring the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order after allowing the assessee to support its documents. Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that an issue regarding the assessment of credits in the hands of partners had not been decided. The Tribunal allowed this application on January 4, 1995, noting the force in the assessee's objection and rectifying its earlier order by directing deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 5,00,851 and Rs. 85,700 for the respective assessment years, allowing the Department to investigate in the hands of partners. The Revenue sought a reference of two questions of law to the High Court, which the Tribunal declined, deeming them questions of fact. The Revenue's application to the High Court under Section 256(2) was dismissed, following an earlier High Court decision that a reference against a rectification order under Section 254(2) was not maintainable.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view, that a reference against an order of rectification under Section 254(2) is not maintainable, was erroneous. The Court reasoned that Section 256 contemplates a reference of any question of law arising out of an order passed 'under Section 254', which includes orders passed under Section 254(1) (on appeal) and Section 254(2) (rectification). The Court emphasized that rectification orders under Section 254(2) can have serious financial implications for the assessee, and it would be unthinkable to deny a remedy by way of a reference to the High Court. The Court found that the questions sought to be referred by the Revenue were indeed questions of law, especially considering the deletions were made in rectification proceedings. Therefore, the High Court ought to have called upon the Tribunal to refer these questions. The Court also noted the assessee's submission that the amounts had been assessed in the hands of the partners, but stated that the High Court could go into this detail during the reference. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to refer the stated questions to the High Court after framing a statement of case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the facts of the present case? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 5,00,851 and Rs. 85,700 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, representing unexplained cash credits in the accounts of the partners? The Assessee contended that the assessment on account of the credits should be made in the hands of the partners as they had made payments by cheque, and this issue had not been decided by the Tribunal in its initial order. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal was not justified in holding Section 68 inapplicable and in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68, as these represented unexplained cash credits. The Revenue relied on the provisions of Section 68. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the reference against a rectification order, but their actions indicate a challenge to the Tribunal's decision to allow rectification and delete additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 254(1),Section 254(2),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4089 of 1998 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR RESPONDENT: DURGA ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/08/2000 BENCH: SP BHARUCHA & U.C. BANERJEE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2000 Supp(2) SCR 135 The following order of the Court was delivered : The assessment years in question are 1987-88 and 1988-89, For these assessment years, the Income Tax Officer made additions to the income of the assessee, which is a partnership firm of sums which, in his view, represented the unexplained cash credits in the name of partners of the firm. The assessments were upheld by the Commissioner in appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on 7th November, 1994, allowed the assessee’s appeal and, setting aside the assessment orders, restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to pass a fresh order after allowing the assessee the opportunity to support the documents Chat it had earlier filed before him. Neither party sought to file any reference application there against but the assessee filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,634 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →