DURGA FILMS TRADES L V. COMNR.OF INCOME TAX

ITA/189/2004

AI Insights

The case involves appeals filed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, which were unfavorable to the appellant for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96. The appellant contested the non-acceptance of certain registers by the tax authority, which had been previously accepted for other years and similar cases. The Tribunal's initial decisions were challenged on the grounds that they did not consider the factual matrix or provide cogent reasons for their conclusions. The High Court found merit in the appellant's arguments and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 674101 (HC-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Investment Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta, Balapur Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandali Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat, M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and another v. Union of India and others, M/s. Orissa Forest Corporation v. Addl. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar and others, Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, Rameshchandra M. Luthra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT v. Wellworth Agencies (P) Ltd., CIT v. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Remittance back; Tribunal order

Judgement Text

" 12. 08.08.2019 Heard Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department-respondents. 2. ITA Nos.189 and 190 of 2004 have been filed against the common order dated 14.6.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Income Tax Appeal No.207/CTK/1997 read with C.O. No.67/CTK of 1997 and Income Tax Appeal No.422/CTK/1998 for the assessment year 1993-94 and 1995-96 respectively and the ITA No.67 of 2006 has been filed against the order dated 15.05.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short “the Tribunal”) in Income Tax Appeal No.120/CTK/1996 read with C.O. No.23/CTK of 1996 for the assessment year 1992-93, allowing the appeals preferred by the Revenue Department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the paper books produced in Court today submits that in some of the assessment years i.e. 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, registers were accepted by the authority and even for the assessment year 1994-95, the same was accepted. It is further submitted that prior thereto from 1987 to 1991, the same method was accepted for another talkies i.e. Devi Talkies, but, subsequently, without any valid reasons, registers have not been accepted by the authority, which has resulted in passing the impugned order. 4. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the show register and other ITA Nos.189 & 190 of 2004 and ITA No.67 of 2006 -2- documents, which are produced today by way of a paper book and also relied upon the following decisions: 1. M/s. Investment Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta, (1970) 3 SCC 333. 2. Balapur Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandali Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat, (1982) 135 ITR 91. 3. M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1992) 1 SCC 659. 4. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and another v. Union of India and others, (2006) 3 SCC 1. 5. M/s. Orissa Forest Corporation v. Addl. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar and others, O.J.C. No.2061 of 1994 and batch of writ petitions. 6. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1959) 37 ITR 151. 7. Rameshchandra M. Luthra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2002) 257 ITR 460. 8. CIT v. Wellworth Agencies (P) Ltd., (2008) 19 (1) ITCL 2 (Del.-HC). 9. CIT v. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries, (2006) 9 (1) ITCL 10 (Guj-HC). 5. Perused the impugned orders in detail. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has not considered the factual matrix of the case and has not given any cogent reason while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the matters are required to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The impugned orders of the learned Tribunal dated 14.6.2004 and 15.05.2006 are therefore, quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted back to the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and -3- dispose of the appeals within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ITAs are accordingly disposed of. All connected misc. case(s)/I.A(s), if any is/are accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. MP .…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice …………………..……… (K.R.Mohapatra) Judge "