LexC.K. GANGADHARAN & ANR. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) ·11 S.C.R. 52 --J.. A C.K. GANGADHARAN & ANR. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN (Civil Appeal Nos. 5210-5216 of 2002) B JULY 21, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ] Appeal: c Tax laws - Non-filing of appeal by Revenue in some cases - HELO: Would not operate as a bar for Revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronounce- D ment by higher Court when divergent views are expressed by Tribunals or High Courts -- Practice and Procedure. There being diverse views of superior Courts on the _.._ question whether Revenue can be precluded from·defend- ing itself by relying upon the contrary decisions, the ref- E erence was made to the larger Bench. Answering the reference, the Court HELD: 1.1 Merely because in some cases the Rev- enue has not preferred appeal, that does not operate as a F bar for the Revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribu~ nals or the High Courts. [para 13] [60-D,E] G Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (3) SCC 1 ; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 1995 (4) SCC 683; Gove.-nmer:t of WB. v. Tarun K. Roy and • Ors. 2004 (1) SCC 347; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ramdec ).... Yadav and Ors. 1996(3) 3CC 493; Karam Chan v L!nicn ,_-;f H 52 C.K. GANGADHARAN & ANR. v. COMMISSIONER 53 OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN India and Ors. 2000 (243) ITR 143 and Union of India v. A Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Anr. 2001 (249) ITR; and Com- missioner of Income Tax v. Shivsagar Estate 2004 (9) SCC 420 - relied on. State of WB. v. Debdas Kumar 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC B 138; Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira Cement 2006 (2) SCC 439; Chief Secretary to Government ofAndhra Pradesh and Anr. v. VJ. Cornelius and Ors. 1981 (2) SCC 347; Berger Paints India Ltd. V Commissioner of Income Tax, Caluctta 2004 (12) SCC 42; Union of India and Ors. v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Anr. 2001 (10) SCC 231 ;·and C Himalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income T_ax, A. P and Anr_ 2003 (9) SCC 510 - referred to. 1.2 If the assessee takes the stand that the Revenue acted ma/a fide in not preferring appeal in one case and o filing the appeal in other case, it has to establish ma/a fides. As a matter of fact, there may be certain cases where because of the small amount of revenue involved, no ap- peal is filed. Policy decisions have been taken not to pre- fer appeal where the revenue involved is below a certain amount. Similarly, where the effect of decision is revenue neutral there may not be any need. for preferring the ap- peal. All these certainly provide the foundation for mak- ing a departure. [para 12] (60-B,C,D] Case law reference: 2006 (3) sec 1 relied on [para 4] 1995 (4) sec 683 relied on [para 5] 2004 (1) sec 347 relied on [para 6] 1996(3) sec 493 relied on [para 6] 1991 Suppl. (1) sec 138 referred to [para 7] 2006 (2) sec 439 relied on [para 8] 1"981 (2) sec 347 relied on [para 9] E F G 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 11 S.C.R. A 2000 (24.3) ITR 14~ . relied on [para 10] 2001 (249) ITR relied on [para. 10] 2004 (9) sec 420 relied on [para 10] B · 2004 .(12) sec 42 . referred to [para 11] - t •• 2001 (10) sec 231 referred to [para 11]. . 2003 (9) sec s1 o referred to [para 11] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. C 5210-5216 of 2002 · Fr~m the final Judgment and Order dated 2.11.2001 of the High Court of Kerala· in ITA Nos. 8, 20, 21, 22 of 2000 & 31, 42 & 49 of 2001 · · o Prite~.h Kap_ur, Vivek Gupta,. Alka Sha;rrna . and .S~bram.o.niu!Tl Pr~sad· for the Appellant. · ·. · E F G H . ' ~ , v. Shekhar, Ranbir Ch3ndra and B.V Balaram Das for th'e R~spondent. , : ... The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . . ' Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J; 1. By order dated 13.3.2008, a reference was made to larger Bench and that· is how these cases are· before us. The orqer, of reference, inter-alia, reads as fol- lows: "xxx xxx .; xxx ·;In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the opinion that matter requires consideration by a larger Bench to the extent whether ravenue can be precluded from defending itself by relying upon the contrary·dedsion: · · We make it clear that we are not doi.J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.