M/S AMTEK AUTO LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/589/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075327200625 March 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Amtek Auto Limited, filed two appeals (ITA No.589 of 2006 and ITA No.588 of 2006) against the order dated 9.6.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D'. These appeals challenged the Tribunal's decision for assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-02. The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute revolved around the Tribunal's dismissal of the assessee's appeal, which the assessee contended was based on an overruled High Court judgment and contrary to Supreme Court pronouncements. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the assessee's appeals to the High Court after the Tribunal's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that both appeals were covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in Jt.C.I.T., Mumbai v. M/s Rolta India Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.135 of 2011, decided on 7.1.2011). This judgment was also followed by the High Court in other cases, specifically ITA Nos.176 to 181 of 2003 titled CIT Chg. V. Steel Strips, decided on 4.3.2011. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals. The reasoning for dismissal was based on the binding precedent established by the Supreme Court, which addressed the issues raised by the assessee. The specific findings on each of the four questions of law were implicitly answered in favor of the revenue by virtue of the Supreme Court's ruling, which the High Court found applicable. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal based on the judgment in CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H), when the Supreme Court had affirmed a contrary view in CIT vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 434 (SC)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and fact by relying on irrelevant findings and the overruled judgment of CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H), in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Kwality Biscuits Ltd's case? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether interest under Sections 234B and 234C is leviable on book profits under Section 115JA for a company assessment, when the income computation under Section 115J is done at the year-end and Sections 207 to 210 are not applicable until accounts are audited and a balance sheet prepared? (Question of law) 4. Whether the Tribunal's order violates the principle of judicial precedent and judicial discipline? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal's decision was legally incorrect as it relied on a High Court judgment that was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court. They contended that the Tribunal misdirected itself and that the impugned order was contrary to judicial discipline. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not present specific arguments in the judgment, but the court noted that the matter was covered against the assessee by a Supreme Court judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 115JA,Section 115J,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 207,Section 210

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.3.2011 M/s Amtek Auto Limited ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ...Respondent ITA No.588 of 2006 Date of decision: 25.3.2011 M/s Amtek Auto Limited ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Parshant Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1.

This order will dispose of ITA No.589 of 2006 (M/s Amtek Auto Limited vs.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon) and ITA No.588 of 2006 (M/s Amtek Auto Limited vs.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon) as it has been stated that both the appeals involve similar question.

2.

These appeals have been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the -2- Act”) against the order dated 9.6.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `D` New Delhi in I.T.A. No.5519/5520 Del of 2003 for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-02 raising following substantial

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 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →