THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
RP/592/2011HC KeralaKLHC01037854201117 November 2014Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the review petition. The court noted that the assessment year under consideration was 1996-97. While the review petitioner claimed to have remitted the excess amount on May 19, 2010, this date falls within the assessment year 2011-2012. Therefore, even if the remittance occurred, it could not have any impact on the assessment for the year 1996-97. The court found no reason to conclude that its earlier judgment was erroneous due to the remittance not being brought to its notice or because it proceeded on the assumption that the amount was still retained by the petitioner, as the remittance was for a different assessment year. The ratio decidendi is that a subsequent event, even if it involves remittance of funds, cannot alter the taxability of income in a prior assessment year if the remittance pertains to a different period.

What were the facts?

The review petitioner, The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., sought to review a judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated March 22, 2011, which had disposed of Income Tax Appeal No. 2 of 2008. The original appeal concerned the disallowance of excess interest tax collected by the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessing officer, Appellate Commissioner, Tribunal, and the High Court had confirmed that this excess collection formed part of the assessee's income. The petitioner argued that they had remitted this excess amount to a government fund on May 19, 2010, following a Supreme Court judgment, and that the High Court's order was based on the erroneous assumption that the amount was still retained by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's judgment in ITA No. 2 of 2008, which confirmed the disallowance of excess interest tax collected by the assessee for assessment year 1996-97, is factually erroneous due to the subsequent remittance of the excess amount by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee (review petitioner) argued that the High Court's order was based on a factual error because the excess interest tax collected had been remitted to a government fund on May 19, 2010, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Banks Association and others Vs. Devkala Consultancy Services and others. They contended that this remittance occurred before the High Court's judgment and that the court proceeded under the assumption that the amount was still retained by the bank. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in response to the review petition. However, the court's reasoning implicitly addresses the revenue's position by upholding the original assessment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/26TH KARTHIKA, 1936 RP.No.592 of 2011 IN ITA.2/2008 -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 2/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-03-2011 REVIEW PETITIONER : -------------------- THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ST.MARYS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.R.S.GEETHA SMT.P.ANITHA RESPONDENT : -------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I(1), TRICHUR, PIN-680 020. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP.No.592 of 2011 IN ITA.2/2008 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:- ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE DEBIT VOUCHER DTD.19/5/2010. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ADVISE OF RTGS PAYMENT DTD.19/5/2010. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.20/5/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- NIL. True copy P.A to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.592 of 2011 in I.T.A.No.2 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2014 ORDER ANTONY DOMINIC, J. The appellant in I.T.A.No.2 of 2008 is the review petitioner. The appeal was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 22nd March, 2011. One of the issues dealt with was in relation to disallowance of excess interest tax collected by the assessee. The assessing officer held that excess collection of interest tax forms part of the income of the assessee and assessed the same on that basis. This was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner, the Tribunal and also this Court. 2. However it is pointed out by the review petitioner that long before the appeal was disposed by this Court by judgment dated 22/3/2011, the excess amount collected by the petitioner was remitted to the fund created by the Government consequent on the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Banks Association and others Vs. Devkala Consultancy Services and others [267 I.T.R. 179] on 19/5/2010. Therefore, according to him, the order

R.P.No.592 of 2011 in I.T.A.No.2 of 2008

passed by this Court on the assumption that the amount is still retained by the petitioner is factually erroneous. 3. However on facts what we notice is that the assessment year in relation to the income tax appeal is 1996-97. Even according to the petitioner, the amount was remitted by them to the fund only on 19/5/2010, which falls in the assessment year 2011- 2012. Therefore even if it is assumed that such remittance was made, that cannot have any impact on the assessment year 1996-97. 4. We therefore do not find any reason to hold that the conclusions of this Court are erroneous for the reason that the remittance of the amount was not brought to the notice of this Court or that this Court proceeded on the assumption the amount was still retained by the petitioner. The Review Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →