THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.RATHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/244/2012HC KeralaKLHC01024166201217 January 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Court observed that the issue of the litigation policy, specifically the monetary limit for filing appeals, needed to be addressed. Citing the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Vasantha Anirudhan [(2018) 401 ITR 279 (Ker)], the Court held that when computing the monetary limit for appeals, the overall demand in a group of appeals with common issues should be considered, rather than the individual demand in each appeal. The Court emphasized that individual appeals cannot be rejected merely because the limit in each is below the specified threshold if the total demand warrants adjudication. The Court declined to answer the question of law as framed, directing the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh with these observations.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2002-2003. The assessee, M.S. Rathi, represented by M/s. Lakshmi Hospital, was also involved in appeals for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, which were previously remanded by a Division Bench of the High Court. In those prior appeals, the assessee had contended that the Revenue could not file an appeal due to the litigation policy, which prohibited appeals with a tax limit below Rupees One Lakh. The assessee also argued that they were not heard by the Tribunal before their contentions on the litigation policy were rejected. The High Court noted that the consideration of the litigation policy should have been addressed first.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue was precluded from filing an appeal based on the litigation policy, which stipulated a minimum tax limit of Rupees One Lakh for appeals, and if the assessee was afforded a proper hearing on this preliminary issue before the Tribunal. Assessee's Contentions: - The Revenue could not have filed an appeal due to the litigation policy, which prohibited appeals with a tax limit below Rupees One Lakh. - The assessee was not heard by the Tribunal before their contentions on the litigation policy were rejected. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue regarding the litigation policy or the hearing of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, other than general reference to 'litigation policy'.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940 ITA.No. 244 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO.18/2008 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 29-03-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: M.S.RATHI M/S.LAKSHMI HOSPITAL, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682016. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 244 of 2012 2

JUDGMENT K. Vinod Chandran, J. The Revenue has filed an appeal from the order of remand for the year 2002-2003. The assessee is represented by Sri.Anil D. Nair. The learned Counsel for the assessee would produce the judgment in I.T.A. Nos.24 & 28 of 2012 passed by another Division Bench of this Court dated 25.09.2017, in the assessees appeal. Therein the assessment years under consideration were 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Here, the assessment year under consideration is 2002- 2003. There was a remand made in I.T.A. Nos.24 & 28 of 2012 keeping open all the issues. The above appeal is filed by the Revenue. Hence there should be a consideration first by the Tribunal. Hence we declined to answer the question of law.

2.

In this context, we notice that the contention of the assessee, before the Tribunal was that the Revenue could not have filed an appeal for reason of the litigation policy, which prohibited an appeal having tax limit below Rupees One lakh. However, the assessee was not at all heard before the Tribunal before the assessee's contentions on litigation policy were rejected was the specific ground taken in I.T.A. Nos.24 & 28 of 2012. The consideration also has to be first on the litigation policy.

3.

On the litigation policy, we notice the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt.Vasantha Anirudhan [(2018) 401 ITR 279 (Ker)]. When the monetary limit is computed, the overall demand made by the Revenue in a group of appeals, where the question raised is common, has to be considered. Merely because in each of the appeals the limit is below that specified in the litigation policy, the individual appeals cannot be rejected. What has to be looked at is the total demand in so far as the adjudication with respect to an issue. We hence remand the matter with the above observation. K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE ASHOK MENON sp/21/01/19 JUDGE //// P.A. To Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2006. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 29/11/2007. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26/07/2011. ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE-E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29/03/2012 WITH A COPY. ANNEXURE-F1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24/10/2005. ANNEXURE-F2 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27/03/2000. ANNEXURE-F3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.1985 DATED 29/06/2000.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →