M/S. PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA (P) LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, N.DELHI

24034-2007

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Perfetti Van Melle India (P) Ltd., the appellant, contesting a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 1998-1999. The core issue pertained to the Tribunal's refusal to rectify its own order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the appellant argued was incorrect. The Supreme Court, referencing its earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India Private Limited, found that the Tribunal had erred and directed a fresh examination of the case by the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 348194 (SC)
• Appeal Type: Supreme court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2010
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: SUPREME COURT
• Department Lawyers: R P BHATT; ARIJIT PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA; KAVITA JHA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Capital account; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Rectification
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"#ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20900/2007 (From the judgement and order dated 08/05/2007 in ITA No.994/2006 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) M/S. PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA (P) LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, N.DELHI Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) [For Final Disposal] [For Directions] With S.L.P. (C) No.22480 of 2008 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) [For Final Disposal] [For Directions] Date: 02/12/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ajay Vohra,Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt,Sr.Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv. Mr. D. Julius,Adv. Mr. Gaichpou,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R S.L.P. (C) No.20900 of 2007: Heard learned counsel on both sides. ....2/- - 2 - Leave granted. The civil appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. S.L.P. (C) No.22480 of 2008: De-tag this petition. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar [Signed order in Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.20900/2007 is placed on the file] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10219 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20900 of 2007) M/s. Perfetti Van Melle India (P) Ltd. ...Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel on both sides. Leave granted. Having examined the facts and circumstances of the case, which pertains to Assessment Year 1998-1999, and particularly in the light of the orders passed for the earlier Assessment Years 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 as also having regard to the Assessment Orders passed in the following year [1999-2000] and in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India Private Limited, reported in [2009] 312 I.T.R. 254, we are of the view that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘Tribunal’, for short] was wrong in refusing to rectify it’s own order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly when it has failed to appreciate that, in any event, the expenditure could have fallen on the Capital Account, which was specifically pleaded by the assessee as an alternate submission. [See Page 73 of the SLP Paper Book]. ...2/- - 2 - For the afore-stated reasons, the impugned judgement of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal. We direct the Tribunal to decide the matter de novo in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Private Limited [supra] as well as on the merits of this case. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. .........................CJI. [S.H. KAPADIA] ...........................J. [SWATANTER KUMAR] New Delhi, December 02, 2010. "