National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assts), Hyderabad

ITTA/26/2001

AI Insights

The case involves the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad, as the appellant, contesting a decision by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assts), Hyderabad, as the respondent. The core issue was the dismissal of a rectification petition by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which the appellant filed seeking to amend a previous order based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal and subsequently the High Court found that rectifications under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be based on subsequent judicial pronouncements but only on materials available at the time of the original judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814386 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Bhooratnam and Company
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Income tax appellate tribunal; Mistake apparent from the record; Rectification petition; Supreme Court; Subsequent judgment
• Section: 200A; 154; 143(1); 254(2); 116

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.26 of 2013 DATE: 27.06.2013 Between: National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad. … Appellant And The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assts), Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A No.26 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal was admitted, however, without formulation of point. Now at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is necessary to formulate the point. Therefore, we formulate the point. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the rectification petition filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when it sought a rectification on the basis of a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court?” The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant herein filed an application for rectification of the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad on 11.12.1997 in ITA.No.1948/Hyd/1992. The basis of making the application is that the earlier judgment could be reversed in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the issue. The learned Tribunal has rejected the said plea on the ground that under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the rectification cannot be made on the basis of the subsequent pronouncement of the Court. The learned Tribunal relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court on this issue. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal, while relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Bhooratnam and Company[1], did not notice the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. He, however, did not cite the said decision of the Supreme Court. We have carefully examined the judgment relied on by the learned Tribunal as well as by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the view that there is no pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this issue that subsequent Supreme Court judgment can be the basis for rectification of the errors under Section 154 of the Act. The language of Section 154 is very clear to hold that whatever material is available at the time of passing the judgment the rectification can be made taking note of those material alone and no other material. We, therefore, set out Section 154 (1) of the Act: “154(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income tax authority referred to in Section 116 may – a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act. b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub- section (1) of Section 143. c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of Section 200A.” Thus, it is very clear that the mistake apparent from the record can be rectified. According to us whatever materials are available on the date of passing of the judgment and such rectification can only be made taking note of those materials alone and no other material. At the time of passing of the judgment admittedly the Supreme Court judgment was not available. Moreover, the decision of the Court of law cannot be a material, but, it may be a supporting hand for any point raised in the field. Therefore, decision cannot be a ground for rectification of the errors and such decision can, at best, be relied on if any appeal is preferred before the appellate forum. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the original judgment and order, dated 11.12.1997. Thus, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.06.2013 ES [1] 238 ITR 674 "