Supreme Court of India · 2019-03-15
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Vs. M/s. Yes Bank Ltd.
Case data and operative result
Repository ID: F2J-C-1363
Court / Tribunal: Supreme Court of India
Case number: Civil Appeal No.3148 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7118 of 2018
Decision date: 2019-03-15
Law family: Income Tax
Outcome category: Set aside and remanded
Sections / provisions: Section 35D of the Income Tax Act; Section 35D of the Act; Section 35D of the Act. 2 The Assessing Officer passe; Section 263 of the Act which resulted in passing of a; Section 260A of the Act; Section 260A of the Act though heard the appeal bipar; Section 35D of the Act to the respondent assessee( Ba; Section 35D of the Act in addition to other questions; Section 35D of the Act to the respondentBank is alrea; Section 35D; Section 263; Section 260A
Extractive case note
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No.599/2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 3. This appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra. 4. The appellant is the Union of India (Income Tax Department) and the respondent Bank is the assessee. 5. In the course of assessment proceedings of the respondent assessee (Bank) for the Assessment Year 20072008, the question arose as to whether the respondent assessee (Bank) was entitled to claim deduction under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") for the Assessment Year in question. In other words, the question arose as to whether the respondent Bank is an industrial undertaking so as to entitle them to claim deduction under Section 35D of the Act.
Operative-result extract
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is accordingly remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits in accordance with law along with another appeal, if pending, after framing proper substantial question(s) of law arising in the case.
Download the complete local judgment PDF (F2J-C-1363)
The complete packaged judgment text and PDF are the controlling records. The case note is extractive and should not be treated as a substitute for the operative order or later-history verification.
Civil Appeal No.3148 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7118 of 2018
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · DINESH MAHESHWARI
F2J-C-1363
Income Tax
Section 35D of the Income Tax ActSection 35D of the ActSection 35D of the Act. 2 The Assessing Officer passeSection 263 of the Act which resulted in passing of aSection 260A of the ActSection 260A of the Act though heard the appeal biparSection 35D of the Act to the respondent assessee( BaSection 35D of the Act in addition to other questionsSection 35D of the Act to the respondentBank is alrea
Download the complete local judgment PDF
One-minute case view
Issue
13. Third, the main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section 35D of the Act to the respondent assessee( Bank). It was, however, not decided. 14. In our view, the High Court should have framed the substantial question of law on the applicability of Section 35D of the Act in addition to other questions and then should have answered them in accordance with law rather than to leave the question(s) undecided. 15.
Holding
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is accordingly remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits in accordance with law along with another appeal, if pending, after framing proper substantial question(s) of law arising in the case.
Facts and procedural background
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No.599/2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 3. This appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra. 4. The appellant is the Union of India (Income Tax Department) and the respondent Bank is the assessee. 5. In the course of assessment proceedings of the respondent assessee (Bank) for the Assessment Year 20072008, the question arose as to whether the respondent assessee (Bank) was entitled to claim deduction under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") for the Assessment Year in question. In other words, the question arose as to whether the respondent Bank is an industrial undertaking so as to entitle them to claim deduction under Section 35D of the Act. 6. The case of the respondent was that they, being an industrial undertaking, are entitled to claim the deduction under Section 35D of the Act. 2 The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 31.10.2009 which gave rise to the proceedings before the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act which resulted in passing of an adverse order dated 14.11.2011 by the Commissioner. 7.
Court’s approach
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 11. In our view, the need to remand the case to the High Court is called for due to the following reasons. 12. First, the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as is required to be framed under Section 260A of the Act though heard the appeal bipartite. In other words, the High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law; Second, the High Court 4 dismissed the appeal without deciding any issue arising in the case saying that it is not necessary. (see para 6). 13. Third, the main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section 35D of the Act to the respondent assessee( Bank). It was, however, not decided. 14.
Practical significance
This judgment is relevant to income tax. Compare its ratio with the governing provisions, subsequent judgments and any legislative change before relying on it.
Finin2min Q&A
- What did this case concern?
- 13. Third, the main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section 35D of the Act to the respondent assessee( Bank). It was, however, not decided. 14. In our view, the High Court should have framed the substantial question of law on the applicability of Section 35D of the Act in addition to other questions and then should have answered them in accordance with law rather than to leave the question(s) undecided. 15.
- What did the Supreme Court decide?
- 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is accordingly remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits in accordance with law along with another appeal, if pending, after framing proper substantial question(s) of law arising in the case.
- Why is this judgment useful?
- It provides Supreme Court guidance on income tax and should be read with the governing law and later developments.
- Is the full judgment available?
- Yes. The complete sanitized text and local PDF F2J-C-1363 are included.
Related judgments
- M/s. Dalmia Power Limited & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Trichy
- Mahabir Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (Earlier Known as Maruti Udyog Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
- Sasi Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Full judgment text
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Vs. M/s. Yes Bank Ltd.
[Civil Appeal No.3148 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7118 of 2018]
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No.599/2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
3. This appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra.
4. The appellant is the Union of India (Income Tax Department) and the respondent Bank is the assessee.
5. In the course of assessment proceedings of the respondent assessee (Bank) for the Assessment Year 20072008, the question arose as to whether the respondent assessee (Bank) was entitled to claim deduction under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") for the Assessment Year in question. In other words, the question arose as to whether the respondent Bank is an industrial undertaking so as to entitle them to claim deduction under Section 35D of the Act.
6. The case of the respondent was that they, being an industrial undertaking, are entitled to claim the deduction under Section 35D of the Act. 2 The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 31.10.2009 which gave rise to the proceedings before the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act which resulted in passing of an adverse order dated 14.11.2011 by the Commissioner.
7. This gave rise to filing of the appeal by the respondent before the ITAT against the order of the Commissioner. By order dated 05.12.2014, the ITAT allowed the appeal which gave rise to filing of the appeal by the Revenue (Income Tax Department) in the High Court under Section 260A of the Act.
8. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal after hearing both the parties giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
9. So, the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
11. In our view, the need to remand the case to the High Court is called for due to the following reasons.
12. First, the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as is required to be framed under Section 260A of the Act though heard the appeal bipartite. In other words, the High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law; Second, the High Court 4 dismissed the appeal without deciding any issue arising in the case saying that it is not necessary. (see para 6).
13. Third, the main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section 35D of the Act to the respondent assessee( Bank). It was, however, not decided.
14. In our view, the High Court should have framed the substantial question of law on the applicability of Section 35D of the Act in addition to other questions and then should have answered them in accordance with law rather than to leave the question(s) undecided.
15. It was brought to our notice that the issue with regard to applicability of Section 35D of the Act to the respondentBank is already pending consideration before the High Court at the instance of the respondent in one appeal. If that be so, both the appeals, in our view, should be decided together.
16. It is for all these reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is accordingly remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits in accordance with law along with another appeal, if pending, after framing proper substantial question(s) of law arising in the case.
18. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case having formed an opinion to remand the appeal to the High Court for its disposal on the merits afresh. The High Court will accordingly decide the appeal uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order and this order.
............................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
............................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 15, 2019
Back
Back to March 2019 Judgements
Browse years
Author: CA Nikhil Gupta
Disclaimer: This material is for general information and legal research. It is not legal advice. Verify the current law, operative order and later history, and consult a qualified professional before acting.