THE STATE BANK OF HYD. V. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

ITTA/103/2001

AI Insights

The case involves the State Bank of India appealing against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had earlier rejected the bank's application for rectification of an order concerning the assessment year 1985-86. The original dispute centered on the non-declaration of interest on a 'protested bill account' by the bank, which led to an addition of Rs.2,65,51,417 as chargeable interest by the assessing officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later deleted this addition, a decision reversed by the Tribunal based on two Supreme Court decisions, which were subsequently overruled. The bank's rectification application was dismissed by the Tribunal, leading to this appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726562 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: State Bank of Travancore v. CIT, Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT, UCO Bank v. CIT, Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, B.V.K. Seshavataram v. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Interest Tax Act, 1974, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K CHOWDARY
• Assessee Lawyers: KARTHIK PUTTAMREDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Year 1985-86; Income Tax; Interest Tax; Rectification; Review
• Section: 254(2); 27; 21; 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER IWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C,V. BHASKAR REDDY INCOME TAx TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 103 OF 2001 Appeal Under Section 21 of the lnterest Tax Act, 1974 read with Section read with Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23-03-2001 passed by the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B Hyderabad in M.P. No. 2 / Hyderabad / 2001 in lnterest Tax Appeal No. 9 / Hyderabad / 1992 for the Assessment Year 1985-86 in M.P.No. 2 I Hydl 2001 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals ) lll , A.P. Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 50 to 59 / DC (A) lll/ CIT (A) lll/ 89-90 Between: The State Bank of lndia having its registered office at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad - 500 001 , rep. by its Chief Manager ( Finance & Taxation ) , Mr. C. Ramaswamy ...... APPELLANT APPELLANT Deputy Commissioner of lncome - Tax, Circle 3 (2) Signature Towers , Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084 Respondent ( Dismissal for defanlt order dated 21-03-2014 is Set aside vide Court Order dated 28-11-2016 in ITTA MP No. 638 of 2015 ) (Causal tittle of respondent is Amended vide Court Order dated 28-11-2016 in ITTA MP No. 248 of 2016 ) (Amended ride C.O. dt . 7 -9-2022 in lA No. 1120171 And Counsel for the Appe lant: Sri KARTHIK RAMANA PU'ITAM REDDY FOR STi.S.DWARAKI ANATH Counsel for the Res; )ndent: MS. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY St) fc,r l.T. Dept The Court delivered rhe following: Judgment 2 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BIIIIYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BTTASKAR REDDY I.T.T.A. No.1O3 of 2OO1 JUDGMENT: Per tle Honble the CheJ Justice U)joL Bhugatr,) Heard Mr. Karthik Ramala Puttam Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. K.Mamata Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant under Section 260A of the lncome Ta-x Act, 196 1 (briefly, the Act' hereinaiter) against the order dated 23.O2.2OO1 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad (Tribunal) ln M.P.No.2/Hydl2OOl in Interest Tax Appeal No.9/Hyd/ 1992 for the assessment year 1985 86. 3. The appeal was admitted on 20.09.2001 on the following substantial questions ol law: \" 1) Whether on the facts and in the circurnsternces of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 25aQ) of hc Income Tax Act, the Tribunal was c('rrect in holdin; rhat on the basis of subsequent Suprr:me Court Jur grnent the Tribunal cannot rectifv its earlier appellate rrder as a mistal1;r:rt of his submissions I Las filed a compilation of judgmr:nts. I-[e has placed relian :e on a decision of the Supremr: Co rrt in Assistant C ommissioner, Income Tax, llajkot v Saurashtra l.utch Stock Exchange Ltd.a :rn,1 contenls that overruli rg of a previous decision b- . il :;Lr bs,lquent decision is r :trospective. The subsequellt (:(: c-ision lays dovrn the cc rrect interpretation of lar.r' rthici: sl-rould be construed to be the law from dav one. This