The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Union Bank Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTEREST TAX APPEAL NO.1 OF 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax .... Appellant versus M/s Union Bank of India... Respondent….... Mr.A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr.N.A. Kazi, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr.N.A. Kazi, Advocate for Appellant.•Ms.Nupur Awasthi i/b. Consulta Juris, Advocate for Respondent.Ms.Nupur Awasthi i/b. Consulta Juris, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 25[th] MARCH, 2019. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposalof Interest Tax Appeal. This Appeal relates to assessment year1998-99. 2. In case of Respondent-Assessee, this Court by an order dated 18/07/2016 passed in the Interest Tax Appeal No.1/2014and 2/2014 had considered following question; 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case andin law, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Revenue'sappeal by following its order dated 27[th] February, 2007 inrespect of A.Y. 1999-2000 when the same had been set asideon 29[th] November, 2011 by this Court in Revenue's appealbeing Income Tax Appeal No.6458 of 2010?” The Appeals were disposed of in following terms; “4.The appeal is admitted as it raises a substantialquestion of law.question of law. 5.As the dispute is within a very limited compass, atthe request of the learned counsel for both theparties, the appeal itself is being disposed of at thestage of admission.the request of the learned counsel for both theparties, the appeal itself is being disposed of at thestage of admission. 6.The impugned order of the Tribunal whiledismissing the Revenue's appeal on the issue ofwhether interest tax collected has to be included aschargeable interest for the purposes of tax underthe Interest Tax Act, 1974 solely placed relianceupon its order passed on 27[th] February, 2007 inrespect of Interest Tax Appeal No.60/Mum/2004relating to A.Y. 1999-2000. In fact it extensivelydismissing the Revenue's appeal on the issue ofwhether interest tax collected has to be included aschargeable interest for the purposes of tax underthe Interest Tax Act, 1974 solely placed relianceupon its order passed on 27[th] February, 2007 inrespect of Interest Tax Appeal No.60/Mum/2004relating to A.Y. 1999-2000. In fact it extensively 3 / 4 10-IRXA-01-17.odt quotes from the order dated 27[th] February, 2007.Mr.Abhishek Kumar Singh, the Assessing Officer hasfiled an affidavit dated 24[th] June, 2016 bringing onrecord the fact that order dated 27[th] February, 2007passed by the Tribunal for A.Y. 1999-2000 has beenset aside by this Court on 29[th] November, 2011 inRevenue's Appeal No.6458 of 2010 and restored tothe Tribunal for final consideration. However, itappears that the counsel appearing for the partieshad not brought it to the notice of the Tribunal thatthe order dated 27[th] February, 2007 which has beenextensively quoted from was quashed and set asideby this Court by its order dated 29[th] November,2011 and restored to the Tribunal for freshconsideration. Therefore, the impugned order of theTribunal could not have placed reliance upon theobservation/ finding rendered by it in its orderdated 27[th] February, 2007 when the same was notin existence when the impugned order was passed asthe same had been set aside by this Court on 29[th]November, 2011. 7.In the above view, the question as reframed for ourconsideration is answered in the negative i.e. infavour of the Appellant-Revenue and against the 4 / 4 10-IRXA-01-17.odt Respondent-Assessee. However, in the peculiar factsof this case, the entire appeals are restored to theTribunal for fresh disposal on merits. 8.Both Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Noorder as to costs.” 4. Same observations and directions would apply in the present Appeal. 5. The Appeal filed before the tribunal is restored to the file and be disposed of in accordance with the law. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 7.In the above view, the question as reframed for ourconsideration is answered in the negative i.e. infavour of the Appellant-Revenue and against the 4 / 4 10-IRXA-01-17.odt Respondent-Assessee. However, in the peculiar factsof this case, the entire appeals are restored to theTribunal for fresh disposal on merits. 8.Both Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Noorder as to costs.” 4. Same observations and directions would apply in the present Appeal. 5. The Appeal filed before the tribunal is restored to the file and be disposed of in accordance with the law. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)