THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HEDE NAVIGATION LTD and ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court reasoned that a provisional order was made at the time of framing the question of law, but a final order of assessment under Section 143(3) was subsequently passed on 31.3.1992. This final order had duly taken into consideration the provisions for doubtful debts. Therefore, the question of law that was initially framed would not survive. Furthermore, the Court noted the assessee's submission that an appeal had been filed, and a limited relief was granted by an order dated 18.3.1997, which the Revenue had not challenged and which had attained finality. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji Bench. The appeal concerned assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but related to an assessment order passed on 31.3.1992 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision, which had granted limited relief to the assessee, M/s. Hede Navigation Ltd., via an order dated 18.3.1997. The Revenue had not challenged this specific order, which had thus attained finality. The High Court noted that a provisional order was made at the time of framing the question of law, and since a final assessment order had been passed considering doubtful debts, the question of law framed earlier would not survive.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration regarding the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of a provisional order made at the time of framing the question and a subsequent final assessment order that considered doubtful debts? The Revenue contended that the question of law framed at the time of admission would not arise for consideration because a final order of assessment had been passed, and provisions for doubtful debts were duly taken into account. The assessee argued that an appeal was preferred against the assessment order, and a limited relief was granted by an order dated 18.3.1997, which the Revenue had not challenged and which had attained finality. The Revenue did not present any arguments against the assessee's submission regarding the finality of the earlier order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER CHIEF JUSTICE) We have heard the Counsel for the parties at some
2 length. We are of the considered opinion that the question of law which has been framed at the time of admission in the order dated 1.7.2002 would not arise for consideration in view of the fact that the provisional order was made at the time of framing of the question under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, which was passed by the competent authority and which is at Exhibit “D” to the Memorandum of Appeal on 31.3.1992. Since, a final order of assessment has been passed and the provisions of doubtful debt had been duly taken into consideration, the question will not survive.
However, the learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submits that against this order, the assessee had preferred an appeal wherein a limited relief was granted to the assessee vide order dated 18.3.1997 and that order has not been challenged by the Revenue and has attained finality.
3
In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
CHIEF JUSTICE
N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
