C.I.T. LDH. vs. M/S ROCKMAN CYCLE INDS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question of law referred to it had already been decided in a judgment of the same Court in ITR No.9 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Hind Woollen & Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana), decided on 5.9.2006. This earlier judgment considered the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South India Viscose Limited v. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 286. The High Court found that the issue in the present case was identical to the one decided in ITR No.9 of 1995, which was decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the High Court answered the referred question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was to answer the question in favour of the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Rockman Cycle Industries (P) Limited, sought extra shift allowance for the assessment year 1985-86. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) initially declined this claim. However, upon a miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing a similar case where the Tribunal had allowed the claim, the ITAT reversed its earlier decision. The ITAT allowed extra shift allowance on the entire machinery on a concern basis, noting that the earlier order had not been brought to its attention. The Revenue has challenged this revised order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in accepting the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act and thereby allowing extra shift allowance on the entire machinery on concern basis? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Tribunal, by allowing the miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2), correctly rectified its earlier order. This was based on the fact that a similar claim had been allowed in another case by the same Tribunal, and this crucial information was not brought to the Tribunal's notice during the initial hearing. The assessee relied on the principle that such errors apparent from the record or omissions due to lack of information can be corrected. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the miscellaneous petition and allowing the extra shift allowance. The revenue likely argued that the initial order was correct and that the subsequent application under Section 254(2) was an attempt to re-argue the case or introduce new facts that should have been presented earlier. The revenue's stance implies a disagreement with the Tribunal's finding that the earlier order was not brought to its notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal) arising out of its order dated 28.6.1994 in MP No.12 of 1994 (in ITA Nos.253 and 264/89), for the assessment year 1985-86:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in accepting the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act and thereby allowing extra shift allowance on the entire machinery on concern basis? The claim of the assessee was for triple shift allowance, which was initially declined by the Tribunal. On application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') pointing out that the Tribunal had allowed the similar claim in another case, the Tribunal allowed extra shift allowance on the entire machinery on concern basis. It was observed that the earlier order of the Tribunal had not been brought to its notice.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It remains undisputed that the issue has been considered in a ITR No.597 of 1995 2 judgment of this Court in ITR No.9 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Hind Woollen & Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana) decided on 5.9.2006, in the light of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South India Viscose Limited v. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 286 and has been decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 8, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
