COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR versus M/S GOPAL SHRI SCRIPS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 12-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR
v.
         M/S GOPAL SHRI SCRIPS PVT. LTD.
(Civil  Appeal No.2922 of 2019)
MARCH 12, 2019
          [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.260A and Chapter XV – Companies
Act, 1956 – s.560 – High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that it had become infructuous as the name of the respondent-
assessee (company) was struck off from the register of the company
u/s.560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 – Propriety of – Held: High
Court was wrong in dismissing the appeal rendering it infructuous
as it did not decide the appeal keeping in view the two relevant
provisions i.e. s.560(5) proviso (a) of the Companies Act and Chapter
XV of the Income Tax Act which deals with ‘liability in special cases’
and its clause (L) which deals with ‘discontinuance of business or
dissolution’ – These provisions specifically deal with the cases of
the Companies, whose name has been struck off u/s. 560(5) of the
Companies Act – Thus, order of the High Court not legally
sustainable – Accordingly, case remanded to the High Court for
deciding the appeal afresh.
Remanding the matter to the High Court, the Court
HELD: 1.  The High Court failed to notice Section 560 (5)
proviso (a) of the Companies Act and further failed to notice
Chapter XV of the Income Tax Act which deals with “liability in
special cases” and its clause (L) which deals with  “discontinuance
of business or dissolution”. [Para 13] [707-D]
2. The aforementioned two provisions, namely,  one under
the Companies Act and the other under the Income Tax Act
specifically deal with the cases of the Companies, whose name
has been struck off under Section 560 (5) of the Companies Act.
[Para 14] [707-E]
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 704
704
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
705
3.  These provisions provide as to how and in what manner
the liability against such Company arising under the Companies
Act, 1956 and under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is required to be
dealt with. [Para 15] [707-F]
4.  Since the High Court did not decide the appeal keeping
in view the aforementioned two relevant provisions, the impugned
order is not legally sustainable and has to be set aside.  [Para 16]
[707-F]
5.  The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding
the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in
view the relevant provisions of Companies Act and the Income
tax Act. [Para 17] [707-G-H; 708-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 2922
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2016 of the  High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Income Tax
Appeal (ITA) No. 53 of 2000.
A. N. S. Nadkarni, ASG, Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Ms. Nisha
Bagchi, Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Advs.  for the Appellant.
T. R. B. Sivakumar, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
09.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jaipur in DBITA No.53 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the
appeal as having become infructuous filed by the appellant herein.
3. The appeal involves a short question as would be clear from
the facts stated infra.
4. The appellant is the Union of India-Income Tax Department.
The respondent is the assessee in the appeal out of which this appeal
arises.
5. The appellant herein filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the High
Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur bench) against the order dated 28.04.2000 of
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No 226/JP/1999.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR v. M/S GOPAL
SHRI SCRIPS PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal as
having rendered infructuous giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of
special leave by the Income Tax Department in this Court.
The impugned order reads as under:
Ón the last date of hearing when the matter cam up before
the Court on 05.07.2016, counsel for the appellant was
directed to seek instructions about the present status of
the Respondent-assessee (Company) whether it is in
existence or has become non operational or defunct by
passage of time.
Sh. Anuroop Singhi, Adv., appearing for the appellant has
placed for our perusal a communication issued from the
office of Registrar of Companies dated 07.04.20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.