9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether carried forward losses could be set off for computing profits for the purpose of section 80HHC. 2. Whether the Tribunal's earlier decision, based on an overruled High Court decision, can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Carried Forward Losses and Section 80HHC The Department's appeal centered on whether carried forward losses could be set off for computing profits under section 80HHC. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal by following the Bombay High Court's decision in Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd., which held that section 80HHC was a complete code in itself and not controlled by section 80AB. This meant that profits had to be computed under section 29, and section 72 was not applicable, thus carried forward losses could not be set off for computing profits for section 80HHC purposes. However, the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratories Ltd. overruled this interpretation, stating that section 80HHC would be governed by section 80AB, which has an overriding effect over all other sections in Chapter VI-A. The Supreme Court clarified that the computation of income must include both profits and losses as per the provisions of the Act. Issue 2: Rectification under Section 254(2) The Department sought rectification of the Tribunal's order to align it with the Supreme Court's decision in IPCA Laboratories Ltd., arguing that the Tribunal's earlier decision was based on an overruled High Court decision, thus constituting a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal acknowledged that section 254(2) empowers it to correct any mistake apparent from the record, including mistakes of law. The Tribunal emphasized that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India, as mandated by Article 141 of the Constitution. The Tribunal addressed the assessee's argument that the Tribunal's decision, based on the prevailing High Court ruling at the time, should not be considered erroneous or subject to rectification. The Tribunal rejected this argument, referencing legal principles that an overruled decision is considered never to have been law, thus justifying rectification. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Synco Industries Ltd. and other relevant cases, to support the view that an order based on an overruled decision can be rectified. The Tribunal concluded that the legislative intent of section 254(2) is to correct mistakes within the prescribed time, regardless of whether the error was apparent at the time of the original order. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Department's miscellaneous application, rectifying its earlier order to align with the Supreme Court's ruling in IPCA Laboratories Ltd. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the Assessing Officer's decision, thus deciding the issue in favor of the Department. The Tribunal's amended order now reads that the revenue's appeal is allowed, following the Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
|
