THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT BUILDERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1097/2009HC KeralaKLHC01025858200915 November 2010Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the departmental appeal, reversing the order of the Tribunal. The Court held that the issue raised in the appeal was squarely covered by two previous Division Bench decisions of the High Court: MUBARAK TRADING COMPANY V. CIT, (2009) 222 C.T.R. (Ker.) 194, and RADHA PICTURE PALACE V. DY. CIT, I.T.A.No. 39 of 2003 dated 10.12.2009. By following these precedents, the High Court restored the order of the Commissioner issued under Section 263 of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court, subsequent benches should follow that decision. The operative direction was to reverse the ITAT's order and restore the CIT's order.

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns the assessment year 1997-98. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) had issued an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cancelled this order. The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, has appealed the ITAT's decision before the High Court. The assessee is Bharat Builders. The dispute revolves around the validity of the CIT's Section 263 order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1997-98. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. It is implied that the assessee would have supported the ITAT's order cancelling the CIT's Section 263 order. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the order of the Tribunal was incorrect. The judgment does not detail the specific arguments made by the Revenue, but it indicates that the Revenue sought to uphold the CIT's Section 263 order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 ITA.No. 1097 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.188/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ BHARAT BUILDERS,31/2048,VYTTILA, KOCHI-19. ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 1097 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is with regard to correctness of the order of the Tribunal cancelling Section 263 order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1997-98. The issue raised is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in MUBARAK TRADING COMPANY V. CIT, (2009) 222 C.T.R. (Ker.) 194 and another unreported decision in RADHA PICTURE PALACE V. DY. CIT, I.T.A.No. 39 of 2003 dated 10.12.2009. Following the above judgments, we allow the departmental appeal by reversing the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the order of the Commissioner issued under Section 263 of the Act.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →