Wp v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION Nos.1007, 1246, 1247, 1280 & 1794 of 2002COMMON ORDER:(Per Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) In this batch of Writ Petitions, the individual orders, passed by thefirst respondent in a batch of revisions filed by the petitioner underSection 264 of the Income Tax Act (for short, ‘the Act’) are challenged. The petitioner is assessee under the Income Tax Act. In the returnsfor the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98, it claimed variousdeductions, including the one under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Theassessing officer i.e., the second respondent herein did not allow suchdeductions. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed revisions underSection 264 of the Income Tax Act before the first respondent. Through acommon order, dated 05.02.2001, the first respondent refused to grantany relief, as regards deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act,though the revisions were partly allowed. Heard Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and SriS.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the Income TaxDepartment. The petitioner ventilated number of its grievances vis-à-vis order ofassessment by filing revisions before the first respondent. Relief inrespect of some of the items was granted. However, as regardsdeduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the firstrespondent refused to grant the relief on the ground that the decisionsrendered on the subject by various High Courts were not cited withprecision. To be precise, the observations of the first respondent read asunder: “Regarding the claim of the petitioner that it is also entitled todeduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i), it is noticed that the petitioner has onlymentioned that it is entitled to such deduction on the basis of decisionsof certain High Courts. However, no specific citations have beenprovided. In view of this, the claim of the applicant relating to deductionunder Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not allowed.”deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i), it is noticed that the petitioner has onlymentioned that it is entitled to such deduction on the basis of decisionsof certain High Courts. However, no specific citations have beenprovided. In view of this, the claim of the applicant relating to deductionunder Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not allowed.” Assuming that the petitioner did not pinpoint the precedent thatsupport its contentions, duty is cast upon the first respondent to decidethat question, particularly, when the scope of the power in revision filedunder Section 262 of the Act is very wide enough. An adjudicatoryauthority, particularly, in the specialized field of income tax, is expected tobe conversant with the law on the subject. Even if the assessee failed tocite any specific decision, the controversy has to be resolved in one wayor the other. It cannot be left open just by throwing blame on theassessee. Hence we allow the Writ Petitions and set aside the common order,dated 05.02.2001, insofar as it did not extend the benefit to the petitionerunder Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The matters are remanded to the first respondent for freshconsideration and disposal in accordance with law. Since the mattersare more than two decades old, the first respondent shall take steps todispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receiptof a copy of this order, duly issuing notice to both sides. There shall beno order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pendingin these writ petitions, shall stand closed. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J _________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J