C.I.T.LUDHIANA vs. M/S UPPER INDIA STEEL MFG.EGG.CO.(P)LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/102/1988HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01015794198816 January 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its separate order passed on the same day in a related matter (I.T.R. No.80 of 1988), had answered the question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal's decision in the present case was based on its interpretation of Section 7D of the Sur-tax Act, which it considered pari materia with Section 216 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By referring to the reasoning in the companion case, the High Court found that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 7D for the deficient payment of advance sur-tax. The High Court therefore answered the referred question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, disposing of the reference accordingly.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chandigarh. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana, and the respondent is M/s Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. (P) Ltd., Ludhiana. The assessment year in question is 1982-83. The dispute pertains to the assessee's liability to pay interest under Section 7D of the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964, for deficient payment of advance sur-tax in the first two installments. The ITAT had previously ruled in favour of the assessee on this issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 7D of the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under Section 7D in respect of the deficient payment of advance sur-tax in the first two installments for the assessment year 1982-83? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which the High Court is reviewing, was in favour of the assessee, implying the assessee likely argued against the levy of interest under Section 7D. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, is challenging the ITAT's order. The High Court's decision indicates that the revenue's arguments prevailed, suggesting they contended that the assessee was indeed liable for the interest under Section 7D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 7D, Section 216

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** Date of Decision:16.01.2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central), Ludhiana .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. (P) Ltd., Ludhiana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.K.Garg, Advocate for the respondent. **** Rajesh Bindal, J. The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal) in S.T.A. No.16 of 1986 dated 13.7.1987 in respect of assessment year:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of section 7D, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under section 7D in respect of the deficient payment of advance sur-tax in first two instalments for the assessment year 1982-83?” While deciding the appeal under the Companies (Profits) Sur- tax Act, 1964 (for short, `the Sur-tax Act'), the Tribunal relied upon the order passed by it in the case of the assessee under Income Tax Act while dealing with interest chargeable under Section 216 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereof, which is pari materia with Section 7D of the Sur-tax Act.

-2- Vide our separate order passed today in I.T.R. No.80 of 1988 – The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/s Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. (P) Ltd., Ludhiana, the question raised has been answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

For the reasons recorded therein, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly.

( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE January 16 , 2007

( M.M.KUMAR ) renu JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →