9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition. 2. Entitlement of the petitioner to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Applicability of prior judicial decisions and interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 214(1) and section 214(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition: The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition before the Madras High Court, arguing that the authority which passed the impugned order was outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court at the time the order was passed. The petitioner contended that subsequent to the impugned order, the registered office of the petitioner-company had been transferred to Coimbatore, and the income-tax files were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, who falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The court held that there is no merit in the preliminary objection. It was noted that the subsequent transfer of the registered office and relevant income-tax files to the jurisdiction of the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, provided sufficient cause of action to maintain the writ petition before this court. The court relied on the Supreme Court's view in K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission [1954] 25 ITR 167 (SC), which stated that writs issued by the High Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue writs must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those jurisdictions. Consequently, the preliminary objection was rejected. 2. Entitlement of the petitioner to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner claimed interest under section 214 of the Act, which was initially rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad, also rejected the claim, following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Trustees of H. E. H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 239. The petitioner placed reliance on decisions from the Calcutta High Court and Madras High Court, which supported their claim for interest. The court observed that there was no serious dispute from the Revenue regarding the petitioner's entitlement to relief if the decisions in Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd.'s case [1980] 126 ITR 125 (Mad) and Rayon Traders Private Ltd.'s case [1980] 126 ITR 135 (Mad) were applied. The Revenue's submission was that the second respondent was right in applying the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 3. Applicability of prior judicial decisions and interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 214(1) and section 214(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The court noted that various High Courts were divided in their opinions on the issue. While the Madras, Calcutta, Karnataka, and Gujarat High Courts took a similar view supporting the petitioner's claim, the Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Allahabad High Courts took a contrary view. The court emphasized the need to follow the earlier Division Bench judgment of the same High Court unless there was a binding decision by a larger Bench or the Supreme Court. The court held that the earlier Division Bench judgments of the Madras High Court in Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd.'s case [1980] 126 ITR 125 (Mad) and Rayon Traders Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1980] 126 ITR 135 (Mad) were binding and did not suffer from any infirmity. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that these decisions required reconsideration by a larger Bench. The court concluded that the words "regular assessment" in section 214(1) and section 214(2) included not only the initial order of assessment by the Income-tax Officer but also any order passed to give effect to the appellate or revisional authority's directions. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the first respondent to restore the matter to his file and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law as indicated in the judgment. No costs were awarded.
|
