1985 (6) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of commission payment.
Effect of Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition on lower court's decision.
Validity of Full Bench's decision overruling a previous judgment.

Analysis:
The High Court was tasked with interpreting whether the payment of commission of Rs. 30,000 was disallowable under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to a Full Bench decision in Chhotalal & Co. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 276, which influenced the current case's disposition. The Court addressed the impact of the Supreme Court rejecting a special leave petition, emphasizing that such rejection does not automatically confirm the lower court's decision. The Court highlighted that special leave is granted sparingly in exceptional cases and does not imply confirmation of the lower court's decision. The Court cited various cases to support this principle, emphasizing that the refusal to grant special leave does not equate to confirming the judgment under appeal.

The Court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's rejection of a special leave petition automatically confirms the lower court's decision. The Court emphasized that without a speaking order, the refusal of special leave does not imply confirmation of the judgment sought to be appealed against. The Court cited precedents to establish that the refusal of special leave does not indicate agreement with the lower court's decision on the merits. The Court underscored that the detailed considerations and reasons for refusal are crucial in determining the impact of not granting special leave.

In light of the Full Bench's decision in Chhotalal & Co.'s case, which overruled a previous judgment, the Court answered the question in the negative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the Revenue. The Court clarified that the decision in Sajjanraj Divanchand's case stands overruled as directed by the Full Bench in Chhotalal & Co.'s case. The Court emphasized that the refusal of special leave does not automatically uphold the lower court's decision and that detailed consideration by the Supreme Court is necessary to determine the binding effect of a judgment. The Court concluded by stating that the decision in favor of the assessee stands, with no order as to costs.