Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. S.C. Naregal vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubli on 23 October, 2019
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8205-8214 OF 2009
M/S. S.C. NAREGAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals take exception to the judgment dated 23.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in ITA Nos. 362-370 of 2004 and ITA No. 372 of 2004 pertaining to particular assessment years.
The issue before the High Court was whether the Instruction Order No. 5/2008 dated 15.05.2008 could be availed by the appellant(s), providing for disposal of the appeal(s) involving low tax effect. The High Court has gone by Clauses 8 and 11 of the said Instruction. Indeed, Clause 11 of the Instruction does mention that where the appeals have been filed before 15.05.2008, will be Signature Not Verified governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.10.24 17:29:15 IST Reason: when such appeal was filed.
2Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Director of Income Tax, Circle 26(1), New Delhi vs. S.R.M.B. Dairy Farming (P) Ltd., reported in (2018) 13 SCC 239. This Court after considering the decisions of different High Courts, including the Supreme Court decision on the question involved, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Surya Herbal Ltd. reported in (2011) 15 SCC 482 answered the question in favour of assessee in the following words:
“23. We are of the view that the matter needs to be put to rest and a clarity be obtained in view of the impact of this issue on pending cases before the High Courts as well as the cases which have been disposed of by various High Courts by applying the Circular of 2011 to pending litigations. In our view the matter has been squarely put to rest taking further care of the interest of the Revenue by the order passed by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Surya Herbal Ltd. Case, which had put two caveats even to the retrospective application of the Circular. The subsequent orders have been passed by the two-Judge Bench without those orders being brought to the notice of the Court, a duty which was cast on the Department to have done so to avail the ambiguity which has arisen. Thus, the said view of the three-Judge Bench would hold water and the Circular would apply even to pending matters but subject to the two caveats provided in Surya Herbal Ltd. case.” The same interpretation must apply to the instructions under consideration. In the present case, neither there is possibility of cascading effect or issue involved in group of matters as such.
Therefore, the appeals are allowed.3
As a result, the appeals filed by the Department before the High Court stands dismissed because of low tax effect, leaving question of law open.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…...................J (A.M. KHANWILKAR) …...................J (DINESH MAHESHWARI) New Delhi October 23, 2019 4 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 8205-8214/2009 M/S. S.C. NAREGAL Appellant(s) VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ AT TOP ] ) Date : 23-10-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Appellant(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. ANS Nadkarni, ASG Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Baroona Gautam, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)