NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOP.M.F vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the Department. The Court noted that the amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) was made applicable retrospectively from April 1, 1968. This retrospective application meant that the amended provision was to be treated as having been in effect from that earlier date. The High Court referred to its own prior judgment in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India v. Union of India ([2001] 251 ITR 285 (Delhi)), which affirmed the validity of the retrospective amendment, and the subsequent affirmation of this decision by the Supreme Court in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India ([2003] 260 ITR 548 (SC)). Given the retrospective nature of the amendment and the judicial pronouncements upholding it, the Court found no error in the ITAT's approach. 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) challenge the Delhi High Court's decision admitting substantial questions of law. The core issue revolves around the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order dated August 31, 1998, which was later modified upon the revenue's miscellaneous application. The revenue sought rectification based on a subsequent amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a Supreme Court pronouncement upholding this provision. The assessment years involved are 1986-87 to 1994-95. The appeals were admitted on November 23, 2005.
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, 1961, and a Supreme Court pronouncement upholding the said provision? Assessee's contention: The ITAT erred in allowing the miscellaneous application because the amendment to Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) came into force on January 8, 1999, after the original order was passed on August 31, 1998. The assessee argued that a subsequent amendment, even if retrospective, does not make the original order suffer from an apparent error, and thus the ITAT was not justified in overturning its judgment. Revenue's contention: 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 ITAT passed its original order. The revenue relied on the High Court's 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 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
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 12:43:46
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. (36) + ITA 1166/2005
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 Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Mr. Pushpag Shah Johri, Advs. (37) + ITA 1168/2005
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 12:43:46
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 %
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 12:43:46
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.
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 12:43:46
justified in allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the Department. The question of law is, therefore, answered against the assessee.
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 12:43:46
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
