2004 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Section 72A(1) and (3) amalgamation - specified authority rejected proposal under section 72A(3) - Section 72A(1) will come into operation after the amalgamation is made effective and not before that. So far as sub-section (3) of section 72A is concerned it is in the nature of an advance ruling because it deals with a situation where prior to the amalgamation the company submits its proposal in the form of a scheme of amalgamation to the specified authority - In this case there is no dispute that the authority was moved after the amalgamation and therefore the authority was required to pass an order under section 72A(1) of the Act and not under section 72A(3) thereof. - It is thus clear that there is a non-application of mind bu specified authority - the order passed by the specified authority is quashed

Issues involved:
1. Disregard of court direction in making an order under section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-application of mind by the specified authority in passing the order.
3. Disobedience of the court order and failure to follow the prescribed process under section 72A(1) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, formerly known as Indian Explosives Limited and now as ICI (India) Limited, approached the High Court in the second round of litigation regarding an order made by the specified authority under section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Despite a previous court direction in a related case, the specified authority made an order disregarding the court's decision and without proper application of mind. The court had directed the specified authority to reconsider the matter and give a fresh recommendation, which was not followed. The Central Government did not pass any order in this regard. The court found that the order made by the specified authority was in violation of the court's previous direction and the provisions of the Act.

2. The court highlighted the provisions of section 72A(1) and (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deal with amalgamation of companies. It was noted that the specified authority's order was made under section 72A(3) when it should have been under section 72A(1) since the company had already undergone amalgamation. This indicated a clear non-application of mind and disobedience of the court's previous order. The court emphasized that the specified authority must act strictly in accordance with the court's decision and the Central Government should also follow suit.

3. The court quashed the order made by the specified authority and directed it to pass a new order in line with the court's previous decision within four months. The Central Government was instructed to make a decision within two months after the specified authority's recommendation. The court also noted that the stay on proceedings related to assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88, as directed by the Division Bench, would continue until the Central Government's decision is made. The judgment emphasized the importance of following court directions and the prescribed legal process under the Income-tax Act, ensuring compliance with the law and judicial decisions.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the court's findings and directions regarding the specified authority's order under section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

← Previous Next →