Cit vs Insilco Ltd.
- Citation2005 SCC OnLine SC 1792
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Constitution Bench decision is cited as having altered or superseded an earlier precedent of the Supreme Court, the question whether the earlier precedent remains good law is a substantial question of law that requires consideration by the High Court on admission of an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rather than being determined summarily at the admission stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The grievance of the appellant is that the High Court, while admitting the appeal in respect of two assessment years under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directed that only the appeal relating to the assessment year 1990-1991 would be admitted. As far as the second assessment year 1991-92 was concerned, the High Court was of the view that the issue had been correctly decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal relying upon the decisions of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 72 and Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 44 as affirmed by this court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209.
The appellant has said that Ranchi Club (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) was not an authority for the proposition as determined by the High Court and it erred in not admitting the appeal for the assessment year 1991-92. It is said that the decision of the High Court in Ranchi Club (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) did not lay down that interest could not be charged unless the assessment order mentioned the specific section as held by the Tribunal. Therefore, what was affirmed by this court was not the requirement to charge interest under a specific section. We are unable to uphold this submission, having regard to the clear language of the decision of the Patna High Court. It was without question affirmed by this court.
The second ground on which the appellant has contended that the appeal should have been admitted is that the law laid down in Ranchi Club (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) had been changed by virtue of the decision of the Constitution Bench in CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand has urged that the decision of the Constitution Bench did not at all affect the earlier affirmation of the Ranchi Club case (2001) 247 ITR 209 by this court. In our opinion the dispute raises a question of law which requires consideration.
The appeal is allowed on this short ground and the matter remanded back to the High Court after admitting the appeal for the assessment year 1991-92.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free