COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX V. M/S. INSILCO LTD.

6555-2003

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax as the appellant and M/S. Insilco Ltd. as the respondent. The dispute centered on the admission of an appeal by the High Court concerning two assessment years, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992. The High Court had admitted the appeal for the year 1990-1991 but not for 1991-1992, citing that the issue had been correctly decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Patna High Court and this Court. The appellant contested the exclusion of the 1991-1992 assessment year, arguing that the legal interpretations applied were incorrect. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's argument and remanded the case back to the High Court for further consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2005] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 523824 (SC)
• Appeal Type: Supreme court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2005
• Other Referred Cases: Ranchi Club Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Ranchi Club Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: SUPREME COURT
• Department Lawyers: S GANESH; VP GUPTA; JAGDISH CHAWLA; BANSANT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV DUTTA; ANUVRAT SHARMA; B V DAS
• Keywords: Assessment Year; High Court; Income Tax; Interest Charge; Legal Precedent; Tribunal
• Section: 261A

Judgement Text

"(ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3976 OF 2003 COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX Appellant (s) VERSUS M/S. INSILCO LTD. Respondent(s) (With office report ) Date: 09/08/2005 This Appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMA PAL HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.P. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla,Adv. Mr. Bansant Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the sign ed order and the matter is remanded back to the High Court after admitting the appeal for assessment ye ar 1991- 92. Sushma (Madhu Saxena) Court Master IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3976 OF 2003 COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX .. Appellant vs. M/S. INSILCO LTD. .. Respondents O R D E R The grievance of the appellant is that the High Cou rt, while admitting the appeal in respect of two assessment years under S ection 261A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directed that only the appeal relating to the assessment year 1990-1991 would be admitted. As far as the second assessment year 1991-1992 was concerned, the High Court was of the view that the issue had been correctly decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal relying upon the decisions of the Patna High Court in R anchi Club Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1996) 217 ITR 72 and Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1996) 222 ITR 44 as affirmed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209. -2- The appellant has said that the Ranchi Club case was not an authority for the proposition as determined by the High Court and it erred in not admitting the appeal for the assessment year 1991-92. It is said that the decision of the High Court in Ranchi Club did not lay down that interest could not be charged unless the assessment order mentioned the specific section as held by the Tribunal. Therefore, what was affirmed by this Court was not the requirement to charge interest under a specific section. We are unable to uphold this submission, having regard to the clear language of the decision of the Patna High Court. It was without question affirmed by this Court. The second ground on which the appellant has contended that the appeal should not have been admitted is that the law laid down in the Ranchi Club case had been changed by virtue of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 252 ITR 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand -3- has urged that the decision of the Constitution Bench did not at all affect the earlier affirmation of the Ranchi Club case by this Court. In our opinion the dispute raises a question of law which requires consideration. The appeal is allowed on this short ground and the matter remanded back to the High Court after admitting the appeal for assessment year 1991-92. ....................J (RUMA PAL) ....................J. (Dr. AR.LAKSHMANAN) New Delhi, AUGUST 9, 2005. "