9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Interpretation of section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding passing orders conformably to a judgment. 3. Applicability of decisions by Full Bench of the High Court in pending appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. Consultative jurisdiction of the High Court and the role of the Tribunal in disposing of appeals. 5. Retrospective effect of overruling a previous decision on ongoing cases. 6. Limitations of the High Court in directing the Tribunal contrary to statutory provisions. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act post the omission of sub-section (2) of section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The High Court, in previous decisions, had held that the Commissioner retained jurisdiction even after the deletion of the sub-section. However, a subsequent Full Bench decision in a different case concluded otherwise, stating that the Commissioner lost such jurisdiction. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to follow the later Full Bench decision. 2. The petitioner relied on section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, which mandates the Tribunal to pass orders conformably to a judgment. The counsel argued that when a Full Bench of the High Court has laid down the law, it is appropriate for the Court to direct the Tribunal to pass final orders in line with the Full Bench decision. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Bansi Dhar & Sons was cited to support this argument regarding the consultative jurisdiction of the High Court. 3. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should follow the later Full Bench decision even though the appeal was pending, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. However, the Court noted that the consultative jurisdiction does not empower the High Court to direct the Tribunal to ignore a previous inter partes decision and dispose of the appeal based on a later view. 4. The judgment also discussed the consultative jurisdiction of the High Court and the role of the Tribunal in disposing of appeals. It highlighted that the High Court's advisory role does not extend to directing the Tribunal to deviate from statutory provisions, such as section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act. 5. The Court delved into the retrospective effect of overruling a previous decision on ongoing cases, citing Salmond on Jurisprudence. It mentioned that an overruling decision is retrospective, except for matters that are res judicata or settled accounts. This discussion aimed to clarify the limitations of applying new legal interpretations to past cases. 6. Lastly, the Court emphasized its inability to direct the Tribunal to decide an appeal contrary to statutory provisions under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It rejected the petitioner's plea, citing the observations in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, emphasizing that technical pleas should not defeat the just rights of citizens but appropriate legal remedies should be sought. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and legal principles in directing the disposal of appeals before the Tribunal.
|
