NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOP.M.F vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW

ITA - 1167 / 2005HC Delhi23 November 20051 pages

For Petitioner: JOSEPH VELLAPALLY

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal, indicating that it found a substantial question of law to be determined. The Court formulated the question of whether the ITAT was justified in allowing the revenue's miscellaneous application to rectify its final order based on a subsequent amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act and a Supreme Court pronouncement. The Court did not decide the merits of the case at this stage. The order indicates that the paper books are to be filed within three months, and the case will be posted for final hearing in due course. Therefore, the High Court has not yet ruled on the correctness of the ITAT's decision to allow the rectification. The issue of whether the ITAT was justified in allowing the miscellaneous application remains to be decided.

What were the facts?

The assessee is National Agricultural Coop. M.F. The revenue is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment years involved are 1986-87 to 1994-95. The order under challenge is a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue. This application sought to rectify a final order previously passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 6648 to 6656/Del/1996. The rectification was based on a subsequent amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act and a Supreme Court pronouncement upholding this amended provision. The High Court admitted the appeal and formulated a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing the revenue's miscellaneous application (No. 89(D)/1999) and rectifying its final order in ITA Nos. 6648 to 6656/Del/1996 for assessment years 1986-87 to 1994-95? 2. This rectification was based on a subsequent amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act and a Supreme Court pronouncement upholding the said provision. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee, through its senior advocate and other counsel, is challenging the ITAT's decision to allow the miscellaneous application and rectify the final order. The core of the challenge is likely that a subsequent amendment and a pronouncement upholding it should not be used to alter a final order, implying issues of finality of judgments and retrospective application of law. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by its counsel, successfully persuaded the ITAT to allow the miscellaneous application. Their argument would have been that the amendment and the Supreme Court's decision created a clear error apparent on the face of the record or a mistake that warranted rectification, allowing the ITAT to correct its previous order in light of the clarified legal position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . . ITA 1167/2005 . NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOP.M.F ..... Petitioner . . . Through: Mr.Josesph Vellapally, Sr. Adv. with Mr.D.M. Sawhney, Mr.M.P. Rastogi and Mr.K.N. Ahuja, Advs. . . versus . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW ..... Respondent Through: Mr.R.D. Jolly and Mr.J.R. Goel, Advs. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI . O R D E R . 23.11.2005 CM No.16426/2005 Allowed subject to just exceptions. ITA 1167/2005 Admit. The following substantial question of law is formulated for determination:- ?Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing miscellaneous application No.89(D)/1999 filed by the revenue and rectifying the final order passed in ITA Nos.6648 to 6656/Del/1996 for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1994-95 on the basis of a subsequent amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act and a pronouncement of the Supreme Court upholding the said provision?? . Paper books to be filed within three months in accordance with High Court . . . Rules. Post for final hearing in due course. . . T.S. THAKUR, J . . B.N.CHATURVEDI, J NOVEMBER 23, 2005 ga .

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →