Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, would submit that the issue raised in this appeal is now squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors., (2008) 13 SCC p.369 and, therefore, submits that the judgment and orders passed by the Tribunal requires to be annulled by this Court. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that though the issue is now covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra), the matter  requires to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and decision. In this connection, the learned counsel invites our attention to para 20 of the judgment in Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra).

9. This Court, in the aforesaid cited decision after considering the effect of Section 11 AC of the Act, has come to the conclusion that the view expressed in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. C.I.T., (2007)6 SCC 329 is not correctly decided and accordingly has accepted the view taken in S.E.B.I. Vs. Cabot International Capitals Corporation, (2006) 5 SCC 361. After doing so, the three Judge Bench of this Court thought it fit to set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the High Court/Tribunal, as the case may be, for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of this Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors case (supra).

10. In view of the above, we are left with no other alternative but to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.E/711/03 dated 16.8.2005 and remit the matter to the Tribunal for its fresh consideration and decision. We also make it clear that the Tribunal now will decide the issue afresh, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors case (supra).