2014 (1) TMI 496 - HC - Income Tax

Applicability of provisions of section 80I(8) & 80I(9) - Held that - Following assessee s own case for A.Y. 1992-93 1996 (7) TMI 178 - ITAT CHANDIGARH wherein it was held that, If section 80-I(9) was read to include the transactions and arrangements between one unit of the assessee and another unit of the same assessee, as the ld. D. R. would like us to read, then section 80-I(8) would be rendered superfluous. It is well-settled that superfluity or absurdity cannot be attributed to Legislature. On a plain and fair reading of section 80-I(9), we hold that that section is not applicable in the assessee s case because no goods have been purchased from outside and the goods have gone from one unit of the assessee to another unit of the same assessee. We, therefore, hold that provisions of section 80-I(9) are not applicable to the instant case - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Adjudication of same questions of law in multiple appeals before the High Court.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the Income Tax Reference No.124 of 1997, Income Tax Appeal No.50 of 2004, and Income Tax Reference No.90 of 1997, all related to "The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Versus M/s Nahar International Limited, Ludhiana." These cases involved the same questions of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. The Court emphasized that the second question under ITR No.90 of 1997 was dismissed after a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal could not have referred the second question for adjudication.

The primary question of law referred in the case pertained to the applicability of sections 80-I(8) and 80-I(9) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had previously decided a similar question in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 based on earlier orders for different assessment years. Notably, a reference related to assessment year 1989-90, raising the same question, was decided against the revenue in a previous order dated 2.7.2010. Given the previous unfavorable ruling for the revenue, the current reference was answered in alignment with the 2010 order. However, the Court highlighted that although Section 80-I(6) was mentioned in the reference, as the revenue did not present any arguments on this section during the quantum appeal, the Court found no basis to address this aspect of the question.

Conclusively, the High Court disposed of the reference in the aforementioned terms, considering the previous rulings and the absence of arguments on a specific section during the proceedings.