CIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/485/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093423201028 February 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the view taken by the ITAT was not legally sound. The assessee's counsel fairly accepted this position in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No.1883 of 2011, Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, decided on February 17, 2011. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the ITAT, and remanded the matters to the ITAT for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The operative direction was to remand the matters for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer had made an assessment under Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the quantum of addition. The ITAT's dismissal of the Revenue's further appeal was based on the ground that a required approval from a committee, constituted in light of a Supreme Court judgment in ONGC V. Collector of Central Excise, had not been obtained. The amount in dispute is not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in dismissing the Revenue's appeal by holding that no COD approval had been obtained, ignoring the Gujarat High Court's decision in Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITAT, which held that no such committee approval is required as the Tribunal and the parties have no jurisdiction over such a committee and the Income Tax Act and Rules do not permit the Tribunal to exercise such powers? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel fairly accepted the position that the Tribunal's view was not legally sound, in view of a Supreme Court judgment. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's view was not legally sound and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITAT (314 ITR 14).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income-tax Appeal No.485

of 2010

-1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.485 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus M/s NHPC Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the respondent

**** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (

Oral)

.

1.

This order will dispose of ITAs No.485, 486, 487 and 488 of 2010 as it is stated that all the four appeals involve common question.

2.

ITA No.485 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', Delhi in ITA No.2449/(DEL)/2008, for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming following substantial question of law:- “i). Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITAT was right in dismissing

Income-tax Appeal No.485

of 2010

-2- ***

the appeal of the Revenue by holding that no COD approval had been obtained ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of such powers by the Tribunal?”

3.

The Assessing Officer made assessment under Minimum Alternative Tax under Section 115JB. On appeal the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the quantum of addition of income. Further appeal of the Department before the Tribunal was dismissed only on the ground that concerned committee constituted in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission V. Collector of Central Excise (1992) 104 CTR 31 (SC) had not given approval and in absence thereof appeal could not be entertained.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the view taken by the Tribunal is not legally sound. Learned counsel for the Income-tax Appeal No.485

of 2010

-3- *** assessee fairly accepts this position in view of judgment of Hon'ble Judge

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →