THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ONGC

PDF · subscribers
ITA/178/1998HC UttarakhandUKHC01025193200306 August 2003Author: OTHER1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the application made by the department. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in refusing to refer the questions of law to the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal was directed to draw a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned questions of law to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act. Given that the matter pertains to assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal was requested to expedite the procedure for drawing the statement of the case. The application was finally disposed of, with no order as to costs. The specific findings on the merits of the tax perquisites inclusion were not decided by the High Court in this application; the decision was procedural, directing the reference.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an application by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was filed because the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had refused to refer a question of law to the High Court. The assessee is Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), acting as an agent for M/s Gulf Fleet Marine Operations, Dehradun. The dispute revolves around whether tax perquisites obtained by ONGC were includable in its total income. The assessment year in question is 1983-84. The department believed these perquisites should be included, citing sections 44BB and 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in not referring the question of law to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for determination. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee regarding the refusal to refer the question of law. The focus is on the department's application. Revenue's Contention: The department contended that the Tribunal erred in not referring the question of law to the High Court. The department's view was that tax perquisites obtained by ONGC were includable in its total income, either under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act or, alternatively, under section 28(iv) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 256(1),Section 44BB,Section 28(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL [

Income Tax Application No. 412 of 2001 Old No. 178/1998

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut

………………..

Applicant VS

Oil and Natural Gas Commission As agent of M/s Gulf Fleet Marine Operations, Dehradun ………………..

Respondent

………

Sri. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. J.P. Joshi, for respondent .

Coram: Hon. S.H. Kapadia, C.J. Hon. P.C. Verma, J.

Dated: 06.08.2003

PC:

This is an application made by the department under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. This application is made because the Tribunal has refused to refer the question of law to this Court.

A short point which arises for determination in this case is whether the assessee was right in contending that Tax perquisites obtained by the O.N.G.C was includable in its total income. The department took the view that in view of section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, such perquisites were includable in the total income of the assessee . In the alternative, the department took the view that such perquisites stipulated under section 28 (iv) and, therefore, even on that ground on alternative basis such benefits were includable in the total income of the assessee. This point needs to be decided by this Court. The Tribunal erred in not referring the questions to this Court under section 256 of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, we allow the application made by the department and direct the Tribunal to draw statement of case and refer the above questions of law to this Court under section 256(1) of the Act. Since this matter pertains for the assessment year 1983-84, we request the Tribunal to expedite the procedure and process of drawing of statement of case.

Application is finally disposed of. No. order as to costs.

(P.C. Verma, J.)

(S.H. Kapadia, C.J.)

AK.

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →