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

ITA/1164/2005HC DelhiDLHC01059020200513 May 2026Author: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue. The Court noted that the amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) was made applicable retrospectively from April 1, 1968. The Court referred to its own judgment in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India v. Union of India ([2001] 251 ITR 285 (Delhi)) and the Supreme Court's affirmation in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India ([2003] 260 ITR 548 (SC)), which upheld the vires of the retrospective amendment. Given that the amendment was effective from 1968, the Court found no error in the Tribunal's approach of allowing the department's miscellaneous application. The substantial question of law was answered against the assessee, and the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India (the assessee) are against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing a miscellaneous application filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (the revenue). The ITAT had initially passed an order in ITA Nos. 6648 to 6656/Del/1996 for assessment years 1986-87 to 1994-95. Subsequently, the revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of that order based on a subsequent amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a Supreme Court pronouncement upholding the amended provision. The ITAT allowed this application, leading to the present appeals.

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, 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 argued that the ITAT erred in allowing the miscellaneous application because the amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) came into force after the Tribunal had passed its original order. The assessee contended that a subsequent amendment, even if retrospective, does not make the original order suffer from an apparent error, and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in overturning its judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the amendment was given retrospective effect from April 1, 1968. Therefore, the legal fiction created by the amendment required the amended provision to be treated as existing on the date the Tribunal decided the appeals (August 31, 1998).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page 1 of 5 $~33 to 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1162/2005 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOP.MKT.....Appellant Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW.....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. SC, Ms Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Mr. Pushpag Shah Johri, Advs. (34) + ITA 1163/2005 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL M.F.OF I .....Appellant Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. SC, Ms Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Mr. Pushpag Shah Johri, Advs. (35) + ITA 1164/2005 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOP.M.F .....Appellant Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee Advs.

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 12:43:51

versus

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOP.M.F .....Appellant Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee Advs.

versus

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOP.M.F .....Appellant Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW.....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. SC, Ms Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 12:43:51

Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Mr. Pushpag Shah Johri, Advs. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

O R D E R %

13.05.

2026

All these appeals were admitted vide order dated 23.11.2005 on the following substantial question of law:- “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?”

Mr. Satyen Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘D’ Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) has erred in passing the order dated 31.08.1998 and allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the respondent-Income Tax Department, in view of the amendment brought in Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟), which came into force after the order of the Tribunal.

He pointed out that at the time, when the Tribunal had decided the appeal, no amendment had been introduced in the relevant section and the amendment came to be introduced only on 08.01.1999 and argued that subsequent amendment may be with retrospective effect (from 01.04.1968), This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 12:43:51

does not make the order to be suffering from an apparent error.

He thus argued that since there was no apparent error in the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not justified in upturning its judgment pursuant to the miscellaneous application filed by the Department.

Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the amendment which was brought into effect was given retrospective effect and made applicable from 01.04.1968. Therefore, the legal fiction created by the amendment required that the amended provision be treated as existing on that date (31.08.1998), when the Tribunal decided the appeals.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is noteworthy that vires of the retrospective amendment has been affirmed by this Court in the judgment dated 16.02.2001 titled as National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India v. Union of India reported in [2001] 251 ITR 285 (Delhi) and the same has been affirmed by the Apex Court by judgment dated 25.03.2003 in the case titled as National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2003] 260 ITR 548 (SC).

Since the amendment in question has been made applicable from the year 1968, we are of the view that the approach of the Tribunal in allowing the Department’s miscellaneous application cannot to be said to be erroneous in any manner.

We are of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served, even if we find some substance in the contention raised by the appellant qua which a question has already been framed.

10.

The appeals are dismissed, while holding that the Tribunal was This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 12:43:51

justified in allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the Department. The question of law is, therefore, answered against the assessee.

11.

The appeals stand dismissed.

DINESH MEHTA, J

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J MAY 13, 2026/dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 12:43:51

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →