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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/209/2004HC UttarakhandUKHC01003069200505 April 2006Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue regarding 'off period salary' was decided by the Uttaranchal High Court in favor of the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 320. However, the Supreme Court, in the case of 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, as 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. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the questions were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated July 20, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Benches. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's application for recalling its earlier order concerning assessment year 1994-95. The Revenue sought to amend the ITAT's consolidated order dated July 16, 2003, to incorporate a subsequent judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court. The ITAT rejected the recall application, holding that a subsequent judgment does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in not considering the High Court's judgment, which was binding on authorities within its jurisdiction.

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 on the basis of 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 upon the ITAT on an issue arising from the order of an Assessing Officer functioning within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Uttaranchal High Court? (Question of law) 3. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that under the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no scope for the application of Section 254(2) of the Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court, though subsequent, should have been considered by the ITAT as it was binding. The ITAT erred in not applying Section 254(2) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The ITAT was justified in dismissing the recall application as a subsequent judgment does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The ITAT's reasoning that admitting SLPs indicated a contentious issue was also a valid ground for dismissal.

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

COURT NO.2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No.209 of 2004

Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

............ Appellant

Versus

Reading & Bates Exploration Co., as agent of Mr. Reed K.C.

.................. Respondent

Shri P.Maulekhi, Id. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Ms. Krishi Shukla, Advocate for the respondent.

Dated: April 05, 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/2004 (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 →