COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. M/S. GREENWORLD CORPORATION, PARWANOO

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3312/2009Supreme Court[2009] 8 S.C.R. 17506 May 2009Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.B. SINHA, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA54 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were not maintainable. The Court found that the CIT (Shimla) lacked the jurisdiction to issue directions, rendering the notices issued pursuant thereto bad in law. The Court also determined that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer at the instance of a higher authority was illegal and wholly without jurisdiction, making it a nullity. However, to do complete justice between the parties, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed that the assessment proceedings be reopened by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII. The Court did not decide the issue of bona fide of the authorities.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Shimla, passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was challenged by the assessee, M/s. Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo. Subsequently, notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla set aside the CIT's order. The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the CIT (Shimla) had no jurisdiction to issue directions, making the consequential notices under Section 148 bad in law. The Court also observed that the Assessing Officer had passed an order at the instance of a higher authority, which was illegal and without jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were maintainable, considering the jurisdiction of the CIT and the conditions precedent for exercising revisional power. - Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly argued that the order and notices were not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. - Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly argued for the maintainability of the order and notices. 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer at the instance of a higher authority was illegal and without jurisdiction. - Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly argued that the order was illegal and without jurisdiction. - Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly argued that the order was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 263,Section 149,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 197 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

~ [2009] 8 S.C.R. 175 , / COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA A v. MIS. GREENWORLD. CORPORATION, PARWANOO (Civil Appeal No. 3312 of 2009) MAY 6, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 148, 149, 253 and 263 - Juri iction under c Section 263 - Power to exercise of suo motu of revision is in the nature of supervisory juri iction when the order is erroneous, or by such erroneous order prejudice has been caused to the interest of Revenue - Not otherwise - In the instant case the order under s.263 and consequential notice D under·s.148 not maintainable - However, on the facts of the case, in order to do complete justice between the parties assessment directed to be reopened - Constitution of India, Article 142. Constitution of India, 1950: E Article 136 - Juri iction under - In the event an appropriate case is made out, Supreme Court may either refuse to exercise its discretionary juri iction or quash both the order if it is found that setting aside of the illegal order F would give rise to another illegality.

In these appeals, the principal question that arose for consideration was as.to whether the order of a

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →