2014 (8) TMI 120 - HC - Income Tax

Admission of appeal Whether the Tribunal committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record or acted perversely in directing the AO - Held that - The Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law - The Tribunal was called upon to decide the matter afresh and denovo - If the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal and the Court were set aside by the Supreme Court and the matter was remitted for denovo consideration to the Tribunal, then, there was no reason to hold as to how the Supreme Court s order and in the given facts and circumstances could be seen as restricted only to one aspect - If the Appeal was to be reheard again, the Tribunal did not commit any error in deciding all aspects of the matter and which were subject matter of the Appeal - when an opportunity has to be given in terms of the Supreme Court s order to the Assessee, then, it could not be held that as to how the Tribunal committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record or acted perversely in directing the AO to examine the aspect Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2000-2001.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 23.01.2013 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001. The appellant argued that the matter had been previously decided by the Tribunal in 2010, then challenged by the Revenue in the High Court and later in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for denovo consideration specifically on the aspect of the conversion factor applied to soap. The appellant contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not adhering to the Supreme Court's specific direction and by examining other issues, including the Commissioner of Income Tax's powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant claimed that the Tribunal wrongly recorded concessions and made decisions beyond the scope of the remand. The appellant argued that the appeal raised a substantial question of law.

Upon review of the memo of appeal, the impugned order, and the Supreme Court's order, the High Court found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had remitted the entire appeal to the Tribunal for denovo consideration, not limiting it to a specific aspect. Therefore, the Tribunal did not err in considering all aspects of the matter, including those not explicitly mentioned in the Supreme Court's order. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's order should be read in its entirety, considering the proceedings before the Supreme Court and the additional affidavit filed by the Assessee. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal did not act perversely or commit any error of law apparent on the face of the record by directing the Assessing Officer to examine the matter in line with the Supreme Court's order. The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and since the course adopted was not seriously disputed, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

In light of the dismissal of the appeal, the Notice of Motion was also disposed of as it did not survive.