9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 188 - HC - Income TaxRectification of mistake - Held that - Having directed the restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer, it goes on to extract certain observation of the Delhi High Court in Logitronics P.Ltd. (supra) and only thereafter i.e. considering the above decision, decides ground No. 2 in the Appeal, was in favour of the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, we cannot with certainty state that the decision in Logitronics P.Ltd. (2011 (2) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT) had not even remotely influenced the decision taken. In this case, the manner in which the order dated 28 March 2016 is structured and in the final view/direction given after considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in Logitronics P.Ltd. (2011 (2) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT) it does prima facie appear to us, have been influenced by it. In the present case, Tribunal while dealing with the rectification application, must deal with the Petitioner s grievance that the Delhi High Court s decision in Logitronics P.Ltd. (supra) does not apply to the present facts. We are satisfied that the above aspect has to be considered while disposing of the rectification application in the present facts. Restore each of the Petitioner s rectification application to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. This restoration is only to reconsider the Petitioner s grievance in respect of reference/reliance upon the Delhi High Court decision in Logitronics P.Ltd. (supra)
Issues:
Petitions challenging common orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Income Tax Act for assessment year 2009-10; Objection to entertaining petition challenging order dated 28 March 2016; Dispute over rectification application being allowed; Influence of Delhi High Court decision in Logitronics P.Ltd. on Tribunal's decision; Consideration of rectification application and influence of Logitronics P.Ltd. decision on Tribunal's order. Analysis: The High Court of Bombay heard three Petitions challenging a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The Petitions contested the order dated 28 March 2016 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act and the order dated 19 May 2017 passed under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal's order partly allowed the Revenue's Appeals and restored the issue of determining the nature of a loan waiver to the Assessing Officer. The Petitioners' grievance was that their rectification application should have been allowed as the Tribunal relied on a Delhi High Court decision without parties citing it or the Tribunal making reference to it during the hearing. The Respondent argued that the Delhi High Court decision did not impact the Tribunal's decision. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court decision seemed to influence the Tribunal's final decision, prompting the Court to set aside the Tribunal's order dated 19 May 2017 and restore the rectification application for fresh consideration. The Respondent raised an objection to entertaining the Petition challenging the order dated 28 March 2016, citing the availability of an alternate remedy of an Appeal under Section 260A of the Act and delay. The Petitioners restricted their challenge to the order dated 19 May 2017, seeking rectification. The Court considered the influence of the Delhi High Court decision in Logitronics P.Ltd. on the Tribunal's decision-making process and the rectification application. The Court referenced a similar case where a Tribunal's reliance on an uncited judgment led to a successful writ petition. The Court found that the Delhi High Court decision appeared to impact the Tribunal's decision, prompting the Court to set aside the Tribunal's order and restore the rectification application for reconsideration. In the dispute over the rectification application, the Petitioners argued that the Delhi High Court decision influenced the Tribunal's decision, while the Respondent contended that the decision did not affect the outcome. The Court analyzed the Tribunal's reliance on the Delhi High Court decision and found that it seemingly influenced the final decision. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh consideration of the rectification application, specifically addressing the influence of the Delhi High Court decision on the Tribunal's decision-making process. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay addressed the challenges to the Tribunal's orders, focusing on the impact of the Delhi High Court decision on the Tribunal's decision-making process. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order dated 19 May 2017 and restored the rectification application for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to address the influence of the Delhi High Court decision on the Tribunal's decision in the present case.
|
