COMM. OF INCOME TAX DEHRADUN vs. READING and BATES EXPLORATION CO. AS AGENT OF JONES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/217/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01003074200502 May 2006Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue of 'off period salary' was decided by the Uttaranchal High Court in favour of the Revenue in CIT vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 320. However, the Supreme Court, in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and Others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Another (JT 2005(9) SC 639), set aside the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amended by the Finance Act 1999, was prospective and could not be applied retrospectively. Since the assessment year in the present case (1994-95) was prior to 1999, the assessee could not be taxed based on the law laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 20.07.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Benches. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's application for recalling its earlier order. The original appeals before the ITAT related to assessment year 1994-95. The assessee, Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. Jones D., had filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ITAT had decided the appeals in favour of the assessee. The Revenue sought recall of the ITAT's order to consider a subsequent judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that its order did not suffer from a mistake apparent from the record, despite a subsequent judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court? (Question of law) 2. Whether the judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court, even if pronounced subsequently, is binding on the ITAT on an issue arising from an Assessing Officer's order within the High Court's jurisdiction? (Question of law) 3. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that Section 254(2) of the Act was not applicable under the facts and circumstances? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The ITAT correctly dismissed the recall application as the subsequent judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The ITAT's observation that admitting SLPs by the Supreme Court indicated a contentious issue requiring detailed reasoning was also noted. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in not recalling its order to consider the subsequent binding judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court, which was in its favour. It contended that the judgment should have been applied under Section 254(2) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 254(2),Section 9(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 217 of 2004 Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun ………..Appellant Versus Reading & Bates Exploration Co., As agent of Mr. Jones D. … Respondent Shri P. Maulekhi, ld. Standing counsel for the Revenue. Ms. Krishi Shukla, Advoacte for the respondent. Dated: May 2, 2006 Coram: Hon. P.C. Verma, J. Hon. B.C. Kandpal, J. Both the parties are ready to argue the matter today. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter will be referred to as the Act) challenging the impugned order dated 20.07.2004 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches (c), New Delhi in M.A. No.109/Del/204 (in ITA Nos.2410 to 2415/Del/98, 2366 to 2367/Del/98, 2370 to 2372/Del/98, 2374 to 2375/Del/98, 2377, 2379, 2381/Del/98, 2361 to 2364/Del/98, 2416, 2418 and 2420/del/98) for the assessment year 1994-95, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the appellant for recalling the order of the Tribunal decided in aforesaid appeal numbers. The questions framed in the memo of appeal for our consideration are as follows:- A- Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that order of the Tribunal did not suffer from a mistake apparent form record on the basis of subsequent judgment of Uttaranchal High Court? B- Whether the judgment of Uttaranchal High Court, even if pronounced subsequently, is not binding upon the Tribunal on the issue arising from the

order of an AO functioning within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court? C- Whether the ITAT was right in holding that under the facts and circumstances of the case there was no scope of application of Section 254(2) of the Act?

3.

Brief facts of the case as narrated by the appellant are that assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 15.01.1997 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said appeal was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 08.01.1998. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench (B) Delhi which was decided in favour of the assessee. The issue under consideration was decided by this Court and the question was decided in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Revenue preferred a recall application with a request to amend its earlier consolidated order dated 16.07.2003 in ITA No.2410/Del/98 taking into account the Civil Appeal Nos. 351-355 of 2005. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Another, JT 2005(9) SC 639” has held that since the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was amended by the finance Act 1999 and was prospective, therefore, it could not be made applicable in the previous years i.e. to say that no retrospective effect can be given to the Explanation, if the assessment proceedings are pending after the said amendment and accordingly the judgment of Division Bench of this Court was set aside as the assessment year in dispute was prior to 1999. 6. In the present case also, the assessment year is prior to 1999, thus the assessee cannot be taxed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court “Sedco Forex Rajeev Dang

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →