M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITA/252/2002HC KeralaKLHC01021075200214 July 2008Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeals, reversing the orders of the Tribunal. For ITA No. 19 of 2004, the Tribunal's order was reversed, and the officer was directed to allow the claim in terms of the High Court's judgment in ITA No. 30/2002. For ITA No. 252 of 2002 (and implicitly other similar appeals), the High Court found no justification for the Tribunal's assumption that relief for investment in UTI units during the phasing out period could not exceed the amount available for the previous year. The High Court applied its interpretation of the relevant section, as established in ITA No. 30/2002, to allow these appeals. The operative direction was to allow the claim in terms of the judgment in ITA No. 30/2002. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the High Court of Kerala concern M/s. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (the assessee) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (the revenue). The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The appeals challenge orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The procedural history indicates that these appeals were heard along with ITA No. 19 of 2004. The High Court had previously decided a similar issue in ITA No. 30/2002, allowing the assessee's appeal and reversing the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal in ITA No. 19/2004 had followed its earlier order which was subsequently reversed by the High Court. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's view regarding phasing out of relief for investment in UTI units, limiting it to the previous year's availability, lacked justification.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim relief pertaining to investment in UTI units during the phasing out period, and if so, to what extent? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee likely argued for the full claim of relief, as the High Court subsequently allowed the appeals reversing the Tribunal's order. The judgment does not explicitly detail the assessee's arguments but implies they were in line with the High Court's favorable decision in ITA No. 30/2002. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Deputy Commissioner, likely supported the Tribunal's view that the relief for investment in UTI units could not exceed what was available in the previous year, due to the phasing out of the benefit. The Standing Counsel for the IT referred to the Tribunal's observation on this point.

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 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 ITA.No. 252 of 2002() --------------------- (ITA NO.162/COCH/98 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN.) APPELLANT -------------------------- M/S. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI.N.R.ACHAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.PADMANABHA MENON. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT), SPL.RANGE-1, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT FOR R SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT FOR R THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, ALONG WITH ITA NO. 19 OF 2004, THE COURT ON 14/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.A. Nos.252 of 2002 & 19 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008.

JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The issue raised in these cases came up in the case of another Bank in I.T.A. No.30/2002 and we allowed the assessee's appeal reversing the order of the Tribunal. In fact in I.T.A. 19/2004 the Tribunal has followed their earlier order which was reversed by us in I.T.A. No.30/2002. Therefore, I.T.A. 19/2004 is allowed reversing the order of the Tribunal with direction to the officer to allow the claim in terms of judgment in I.T.A. No.30/2002. So far as I.T.A. No.250/2002 is concerned, Standing Counsel has referred to the observation of the Tribunal whereunder Tribunal has taken the view that in the course of phasing out of the relief pertaining to investment in U.T.I. units, assessee cannot claim relief more than what was available for the previous year. We do not find any justification for this assumption and going by the meaning assigned by us to the section in the judgment in I.T.A.

2 No.30/2002, we allow these appeals also by reversing the order of the Tribunal and directing the officer to allow the claim in terms of judgment in I.T.A. No.30/2002. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →