THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. vs. NEELAM AJIT PHATARPEKAR.

PDF · subscribers
TXA/53/2016HC BombayHCBM05003807201526 June 2018Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. M. JAMDAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal. This decision was based on the fact that the issues involved were no longer res integra, having been conclusively decided by previous judgments. The Court noted that Tax Appeal No. 56/2016, filed against the husband of the present respondent and raising identical questions of fact and law from a common ITAT order, had been disposed of on March 28, 2018. This disposal followed an order dated July 24, 2017, in Tax Appeals Nos. 27 and 55 of 2016, wherein the Division Bench had dismissed those appeals. The reasoning in the July 24, 2017 order was that the appeals were covered by an earlier decision of the Apex Court in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that tax is deductible only if the amounts payable result in income chargeable to tax in India. The ITAT had also relied on this proposition and a decision of its Coordinate Bench in Sesa Goa. Furthermore, the Full Bench of the High Court had also ruled on this issue in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as covered by the aforementioned precedents.

What were the facts?

This case involves Tax Appeal No. 53/2016 filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji (the Revenue) against Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar (the Assessee). The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2010-11 and challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The parties brought to the High Court's attention that Tax Appeal No. 56/2016, filed against the Assessee's husband and raising identical questions of fact and law from a common ITAT order, had already been disposed of. The High Court had dismissed that appeal on March 28, 2018, by following an earlier decision of a Division Bench dated July 24, 2017, in Tax Appeals Nos. 27 and 55 of 2016.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal, given that the issues involved are covered by earlier decisions of the High Court and the Apex Court. (Question of law, turning on the principles of res judicata and precedent). Assessee's Contention: The Assessee, through their counsel, highlighted that Tax Appeal No. 56/2016, concerning the identical issues and arising from a common ITAT order, had been disposed of by the High Court on March 28, 2018. This disposal was based on a prior High Court order dated July 24, 2017, which dismissed other appeals as covered by earlier decisions. The Assessee's counsel relied on this procedural history and the binding nature of the prior High Court judgments. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not present any specific arguments against the prior High Court decisions. Their counsel merely pointed out that the order in Tax Appeal No. 56/2016 covered the present appeal as well, implicitly accepting the outcome of the prior proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 195

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 txa53-16-26-06-18 Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.53/2016 The Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Panaji. …... Appellant. V/s. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar. …... Respondent. Ms. Amira Razaq, Junior Standing Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. H. D. Naik. Advocate for the Respondent. Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. Date : 26 June 2018. P.C.: The learned Counsel for the parties point out that Tax Appeal No.56 of 2016, filed against the husband of the present Respondent which raises the identical questions of facts and law, and arises from the common order passed by the Tribunal, the Division Bench had disposed of the said Appeal on 28 March 2018, by

following order. “The learned counsel for the Respondent has placed on record the copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24 July 2017 in Tax Appeal Nos.27 and 55 of 2016. 2. We have perused the order dated 24 July 2017. The Tax Appeal Nos.27 and 55 of 216 were dismissed as 2 txa53-16-26-06-18 having been covered by the earlier decision observing thus:

“2. The challenge in the above appeals is to the Order dated 18/06/2015 passed in ITA No.19/PNJ/2014 and the Order dated 14/07/2015

passed

in ITA No.66/PNJ/2014, both for the Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the appeals preferred by the appellant-Revenue came to be Goa reported in ITA No.72/PNJ/2012 Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., dated 5th February, 2016. 4. In view of the above, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the 3 txa53-16-26-06-18 present appeal for consideration, as the issues involved are no longer res integra”

3.

We note that the Appeal No.66 of 2014 which is referred to in the above mentioned paragraph was part of the group before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal along with the proceedings from which the present appeal arises. In these circumstances, since the issue having been covered in the order dated 24 July 2017, the appeal is dismissed.”

2.

The learned Counsel for the parties point out that the order passed in Tax Appeal No.56 of 2016 as above, covers the present appeal as well. Accordingly, Tax Appeal No.53 of 2016 is disposed of in terms above. Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

More judgments on Section 195

All 2,836 judgments and leading authorities on Section 195 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →