THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.JOHNSON G.OOMMEN

ITA/1508/2009HC KeralaKLHC01026269200923 March 2010Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The appeals concern two cashew exporters who claimed deductions under Section 80HHC for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005, introduced amendments to Section 80HHC with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992. The Assessing Officer (AO) rectified original assessments, some under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and others under Section 143(1), using Section 154 powers to align the relief granted under Section 80HHC with these retrospective amendments. The assessees challenged these rectifications, arguing that a retrospective amendment does not constitute a mistake rectifiable under Section 154. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the rectifications, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessees' appeals, relying on Supreme Court decisions. The revenue has appealed these ITAT orders.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in its conclusion. Citing the Supreme Court decisions in VENKITACHALAM V. BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. and MAHARANA MILLS (P) LTD. V. I.T.O., the Court reasoned that a retrospective amendment is to be treated as if the provision was in the statute from the date of its retrospective effect. Therefore, the provisos introduced to Section 80HHC by the Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992, should be deemed to have been in force during the assessment years in question (1999-2000 and 2000-01). Since the original assessments could not have accounted for these provisos, they became mistaken orders. Consequently, the AO was justified in revising the assessments under Section 154. The appeals were allowed, reversing the ITAT orders and restoring the CIT(A) orders. However, as the Tribunal had not considered other grounds on merits, such as the computation of eligible deduction and liability for interest, the cases were remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration on those grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that a retrospective amendment to the statute does not entitle the assessing officer to invoke the powers of rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the grant of deduction under Section 80HHC. Assessee's Contention: The assessees argued that there was no mistake justifying rectification under Section 154 consequent upon a retrospective amendment to the relevant provisions of the Act. They relied on the Supreme Court decisions in VOLKART BROTHERS' case, 82 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT V. KESHRI METAL PVT. LTD., 277 I.T.R. 165 (SC). Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that a retrospective amendment to the statute is a ground justifying rectification under Section 154. They relied on the Supreme Court decisions in VENKITACHALAM V. BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (1958) 34 I.T.R. 143 and MAHARANA MILLS (P) LTD. V. I.T.O., (1959) 36 I.T.R. 350.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 154,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUE AY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 ITA.No. 1508 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.565/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ------------------------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- SHRI.JOHNSON G.OOMMEN,ST.GREGORIOUS CASHEW INDUSTRIES,PUTHOOR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN FOR R1 SMT.C.K.SHERIN FOR R1

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 80HHC

All 989 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →