COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL KANPUR versus J.K. CHARITABLE TRUST KAMAL TOWER, KANPUR

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 15 S.C.R. 958 
A 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL KANPUR 
B 
v. 
J.K. CHARITABLE TRUST KAMAL TOWER, KANPUR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2092 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Revenue not preferring appeal 
C in· respect of some assessment years involving identical 
dispute -
Filing of appeal for other assessment years -
Permissibility of - Held: Role of Revenue in such cases 
exp/f!!ifl.ef4-:-However, in the fact situation filing of appeal by 
D 
Rev.,.w;u.e- not permissible . 
..... 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appefils was whether the revenue can be precluded from 
filing an appeal Q.ven though in respect of some other 
years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: If the assessee takes the stand that the 
Revenue acted ma/a fide in not preferring appeal in one 
case and filing the appeal in other case, it has to establish 
F malafides. As a matter of fact, there may be certain cases 
where because of the small amount of revenue involved, 
no appeal is filed. Policy decisions have been taken not 
to prefer appeal where the revenue involved is below a 
certain amount. Similarly, where the effect of the decision 
G is revenue neutral there may not be any need for 
preferring the appeal. All these certainly provide the 
foundation for making a departure. In the instant case, it 
~ 
is accepted by the appellant-revenue that the fact 
situation in all the assessment years is same. According 
H 
958 
, 
' 
-
I--
I 
).. 
COMMNR OF INCOME TAX CENlRAL KANPUR v. J.K. 
959 
CHARITABLE TRUST KAMAL TOWER [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
to revenue, if the fact situation changes then the revenue 
A 
can certainly prefer an appeal notwithstanding the fact 
that for some years no appeal was preferred. This 
question is of academic interest in the instant appeals as 
undisputedly the fact situation is the same. [Paras 16 and 
17] [956-G-H; 957-A] 
B 
Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. Charitable Trust 
1992 (196) ITR 31; CIT, Bombay City VII v. Trustees of the 
Jadi Trust 1982 (133) ITR 494; CIT v. Hindusthan Charity 
Trust 1983 (139) ITR 913; CIT v. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust C 
No.2 1988 (172) ITR 698; CIT v. Nirmala Bakubhai 
Foundation 1996 (226) ITR 394; C.K.· Gagadharan & Anr. v. 
Commissioner of Income Tax 2008 (304) ITR 61 (SC); 
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 (3) SCC 
1; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 1995(4) SCC 683; 
Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy 2004(1)SCC D 
347; State of Bihar v. Ramdeo Yadav 1996(3) SCC 493; 
Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hira Cement 2006(2)SCC 
439; Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh v. 
V.J. Cornelius 1981 (2) SCC 347; Karamchari Union v. Union 
of India 2000 (243) ITR 143 (SC); Union of India v. Kaumudini 
E 
Narayan Dalal 2001 (249) ITR 219 and CIT v. Shivsagar 
Estate 2004 (9) SCC 420, referred to. 
Case Law Reference : 
1992 (196) ITR 31 
1982 (133) ITR 494 
1983 (139) ITR 913 
1988 (172) ITR 698 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
1996 (226) ITR 394 
Referred to. 
2008 (304) ITR 61 (SC) 
Referred to. 
2006 (3) sec 1 
Referred to. 
Para 1 
Para 3 
Para 3 
F 
Para 3 
G 
Para 3 
Para 4, 
15 and 17 
Para 8 
H 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
""' 
A 
995(4) sec 683 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
2004(1) sec 347 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
1996(3) sec 493 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
B 
2006(2) sec 439 
Referred to. 
Para 12 
1981 (2) sec 347 
Referred to. 
Para 1"3 
)-. 
2000 (243) ITR 143 (SC) Referred to. 
Para 14 
.. 
2001 (249) ITR 219 
Referred to. 
· Para 14 
c 
2004 (9) sec 420 
Referred to. 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2092 of 2006. 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6. 7 .2005 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in ITR No. 189 of 1989. 
y 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 682 of 2007, 1698, 1699 and 2423 of 2006. 
E 
P. Vishwanath Shetty, H. Raghavendra Rao, Arijit Prasad 
and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellant. 
M.L. Verma, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta and Reema 
A. 
F 
Sharma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals 
in each case is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the 
G Allahabad High Court answering the reference made by the 
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short the 
'iTAT') under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in 
-{
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.