Principal Commissioner Of Income … vs M/S Vallabh Pesticides Ltd. on 16 April, 2018
Showing the contexts in which judgement of high court appears in the document
When the case again arose before the Bombay High Court in case of Yashovardhan Birla (supra) after issuance of the circular by CBDT dated 17.11.2017, the Revenue contended that earlier decision in case of Income Tax Settlement Commission (supra) would not hold good. Such contention was rejected by the Bombay High Court inter alia on the premise that the Board circular cannot overrule the High Court judgement. It was also observed that the decision of the Court did not rest on the circular dated 12.8.2008.
“In the present case, in absence of any finding by the Settlement Commission that no order of assessment was passed on 26.12.2017, the Commission was bound by and duty bound to follow the judgement of the High Court. The Commission, therefore, ought to have declared the application of the assessee for settlement as not maintainable since such C/SCA/5940/2018 JUDGMENT application was filed on 27.12.2017 and if the department was right, the orders of assessment were passed on 26.12.2017. The knowledge of the order of assessment of the assessee or its service on him were wholly inconsequential. The Settlement Commission committed a grave error in law disregarding the dictum of the High Court and instead, entertaining the application for settlement which was passed on 27.12.2017 i.e. after purportedly the order of assessment was made on 26.12.2017. In the process, the Commission without so saying, declared that the judgement of the High Court in case of Shalibhadra Developers (supra) was wrong. We may note the Commission’s observations and conclusions in its own language. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:
This Court in case of Shalibhadra Developers(supra) had considered all relevant aspects of the matter before coming to legal conclusion. It was not open for the Settlement Commission to disturb such ratio of the judgement of the High Court. If the Settlement Commission had noticed a judgement of the larger Bench of the same High court or a judgement of the Supreme Court which, under identical situation, laid down law to the contrary, it was open for the Settlement Commission to record that the judgement of the High Court in case of Shalibhadra Developers (supra) was rendered per incuriam. Except for this proposition, it was simply not open for the Settlement Commission to disturb the conclusions of the High Court on law points reached after detailed consideration. Strangely the Settlement Commission sought to take support from the judgement of Bombay High Court in case of Yashovardhan Birla v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle4(1) & (3) reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 5 [Bombay] which was noticed by the High Court in Shalibhadra Developers (supra) in following terms:
C/SCA/5940/2018 JUDGMENT “34. When the case again arose before the Bombay High Court in case of Yashovardhan Birla (supra), after issuance of the circular by CBDT dated 17.11.2014, the Revenue contended that earlier decision in case of Income Tax Settlement Commission (supra), would not hold good. Such contention was rejected by the Bombay High Court inter-alia on the premise that the Board circular cannot overrule the High Court judgement. It was also observed that the decision of the Court did not rest on the circular dated 12.8.200
