Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Officer In Charge, Secunderabad.
- CitationAIRONLINE 1992 SC 298
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court decision on a reference under the wealth tax legislation has been set aside by the Supreme Court and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh determination of whether land is "agricultural" within the meaning of the statute, a subsequent High Court judgment on a similar reference concerning the same assessee and overlapping subject-matter, decided by following the earlier High Court judgment that was set aside, must itself be set aside and remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the law as declared by the Supreme Court in its remand order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is directed against the judgment of the High Court dt. 5th February, 1976 in R.C. No. 33/70. The following question was referred for opinion to the High Court :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case lands situated at Begumpet, Lallaguda, Sabzimandi, Yerraguda, Zambur Khana, Vicarabad were agricultural land within the meaning of s. 2(e)(i) of the WT Act."
2. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the Appellate Tribunal has held that the lands are agricultural in nature. On reference at the instance of the Department, the High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee and held that the lands are agricultural. In taking this view, the High Court followed the Full Bench decision in the case of the same assessee for the earlier assessment years reported in Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) vs. CWT (1969) 72 ITR 552 (AP) (FB). The judgment in that earlier case reported as Officer-in-charge (Courts of Wards) vs. CWT (supra) was questioned in appeal before this Court and this Court set aside the judgment of the Full Bench and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for appropriate orders after giving opportunities to both sides to lead further evidence, if they so desired, and for the decision of the case in accordance with the law as declared by the Court. That judgment is reported in CWT vs. Officer-in-charge (Courts of Wards), Paigah (1 (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC) at 144). It was held :
"...... We think that this is a fit case in which we should set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and hold that the Tribunal should determine afresh, from a correct angle, the question of fact whether any of the lands under consideration were "agricultural" or not for the purposes of the Act before it. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the Full Bench and send back the cases to the Tribunal for appropriate orders for giving opportunities to both sides to lead further evidence, if they so desire, and for the decision of the cases in accordance with the law as declared now by this Court. The parties will bear their own costs throughout."
3. In view of the law declared by this Court (supra) this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The case is sent back to the Tribunal for appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by this Court in Officer-in-charge (Courts of Wards) vs. CWT (supra). The Tribunal shall grant opportunity to both sides to lead further evidence, if they so desire. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
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