Not specified in the document and Not specified in the document V. Income Tax Department

WP/1280/2002

AI Insights

The case involves a series of Writ Petitions challenging the refusal of the first respondent to grant deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98. The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, claimed various deductions in their returns, which were not allowed by the assessing officer. The revisions filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act were partly allowed, except for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), which was denied due to the lack of specific citations to support the claim. The court found that the first respondent had a duty to decide the issue despite the absence of specific citations from the petitioner, given the wide scope of revisionary powers under Section 264.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676000 (HC-NOT SPECIFIED IN THE DOCUMENT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SRI S R ASHOK SENIOR COUNSEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SRI S RAVI SENIOR COUNSEL
• Keywords: Assessment; Deductions; Income Tax; Revision; Writ petition
• Section: 264; 80P(2)(a)(i)

Judgement Text

"THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION Nos.1007, 1246, 1247, 1280 & 1794 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: (Per Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) In this batch of Writ Petitions, the individual orders, passed by the first respondent in a batch of revisions filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act (for short, ‘the Act’) are challenged. The petitioner is assessee under the Income Tax Act. In the returns for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98, it claimed various deductions, including the one under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessing officer i.e., the second respondent herein did not allow such deductions. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed revisions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act before the first respondent. Through a common order, dated 05.02.2001, the first respondent refused to grant any relief, as regards deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, though the revisions were partly allowed. Heard Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. The petitioner ventilated number of its grievances vis-à-vis order of assessment by filing revisions before the first respondent. Relief in respect of some of the items was granted. However, as regards deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the first respondent refused to grant the relief on the ground that the decisions rendered on the subject by various High Courts were not cited with precision. To be precise, the observations of the first respondent read as under: “Regarding the claim of the petitioner that it is also entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i), it is noticed that the petitioner has only mentioned that it is entitled to such deduction on the basis of decisions of certain High Courts. However, no specific citations have been provided. In view of this, the claim of the applicant relating to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not allowed.” Assuming that the petitioner did not pinpoint the precedent that support its contentions, duty is cast upon the first respondent to decide that question, particularly, when the scope of the power in revision filed under Section 262 of the Act is very wide enough. An adjudicatory authority, particularly, in the specialized field of income tax, is expected to be conversant with the law on the subject. Even if the assessee failed to cite any specific decision, the controversy has to be resolved in one way or the other. It cannot be left open just by throwing blame on the assessee. Hence we allow the Writ Petitions and set aside the common order, dated 05.02.2001, insofar as it did not extend the benefit to the petitioner under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The matters are remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. Since the matters are more than two decades old, the first respondent shall take steps to dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly issuing notice to both sides. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J _________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 12.08.2014. Kvsn/Ys "