COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX vs. O.N.G.C. AS AGENT OF M/S WESTERN SERVICES INT.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found force in the contention of the Revenue Department. It held that since the ITAT's judgment was sub-judiced in a reference before the High Court, it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to allow the application. The Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to draw a statement of facts and refer the question of law to the High Court for its decision. The ITAT's decision to vacate the Section 263 order was not directly adjudicated upon its merits by the High Court; instead, the High Court focused on the procedural aspect of the pending reference application.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Meerut, passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the charging of interest under Sections 139(8)/251/217. The assessee, ONGC as agent of M/s Western Services Int., had initially not charged this interest. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) vacated the CIT's order, holding that no tax was payable by the assessee after final appellate orders, as advance tax paid exceeded the tax payable. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, seeking to refer a question of law to the High Court, challenging the ITAT's decision to vacate the Section 263 order. The Revenue's contention was that the ITAT relied on an order against which a reference application was pending before the ITAT itself.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is legally correct in vacating the order under Section 263 of the IT Act passed by the CIT, Meerut, relying upon its earlier order dated 27.11.1996 in ITA No. 2492/Del/90, even though a Reference Application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act against the said earlier order has been filed and is sub-judice before the Hon'ble ITAT? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The ITAT's decision is not acceptable because the original assessment treated services rendered by the Non-Resident Company as covered under Section 40-D of the IT Act, contrary to Section 44-BB of the Act shown in the return. The matter regarding the determination of income on which interest under Sections 139(8)/215/217 can be chargeable is still sub-judiced before this Court, hence the present application is liable to be allowed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 139(8),Section 251,Section 217,Section 40-D,Section 44-BB,Section 256(2),Section 256(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
COURT NO.2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2001 (Old No. 15 of 1998)
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut …….. Applicant Versus
ONGC as agent of M/s Western Services Int., Dehradun ………….. Opposite Party
Shri P.Maulekhi, learned counsel for the applicant. Sri J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the opp. party.
Dated: 07.06.2006
Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.
Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.
This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act by the Revenue Department against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal refusing refer the following question of law as framed in the application to this Court for its decision:-
“Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. ITAT is legally correct in vacating the order u/s 263 of I.T. Act passed by the CIT, Meerut relying upon its order dated 27.11.1996 in ITA No. 2492/Del/90, even though Refernece Application u/s 256/(1) of I.T. Act against the said order has been filed and is subjudice before the Hon’ble ITAT?
The case of the Department is that ld. ITAT allowed appeal of the assessee vacating the order u/s 263 of I.T. Act, 1961, passed by CIT, Meerut, directing thereby to charge interest u/s 139(8)/251/217 of I.T. Act having not been charged originally. Ld. ITAT While allowing the appeal of the assessee under consideration, has held that after final appellate orders, no tax is found payable by the assessee, as the tax payable was
Rs. 24,92,753/- against which advance tax paid was Rs. 32,48,609/-. Hence, no interest was chargeable and as such the order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act is of academic interest only. Against the said order of CIT(A), Department filed appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide his order under reference decided the matter against the department. The findings given by the ITAT has been based on the decisions in ITA No.4228/Del/89 and No.4229/Del/89.
Learned counsel for the Revenue Department contended that the decision of ld. ITAT is not acceptable because the original assessment was framed treating the servicees rendered by Non-Resident Company as covered under Section 40-D of the I.T. Act, as against Section 44-BB of the Act shown in the return. He further contended that the matter regarding determination of income on which interest u/s 139(8)/215/217 can be chargeable is still sub-judiced before this Court, hence the present application is liable to be allowed. We find force in the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue Department. Since, the judgment of the Tribunal is sub- judiced in reference before this Court, therefore it would be just and proper and would be in the interest of justice to allow the application and to direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw a statement of facts and refer the question of law to this Court for its decision.
Hence, the application is allowed. The learned Tribunal is directed to refer the above statement of fact and record and above question of law to this Court for its decision.
(B.C. Kandpal, J.)
(P.C. Verma, J.) Rajeev Dang
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahadev Malik vs. Additional Commissioner, BhubaneswarOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Dillip Kumar Sethy vs. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Sri. R. Veerabhadrappa vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 6 Nov 2026
- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Dipankar Borgohain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026