2001 PLP 564 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 564 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 239 I T R 546 |
| Bench Members | Om Prakash, C. J. and J. B. Koshy, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 564 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 564 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 239 I T R 546 bench comprising: Om Prakash, C. J. and J. B. Koshy, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 564 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Advance tax‑‑‑Liability to pay advance tax‑‑‑Obligation to file estimate‑ Law applicable‑‑‑Effect of S.209A inserted w.e.f. 1‑6‑1978‑‑‑Order passed by Tribunal without considering effect of S.209A‑‑‑Matter remanded‑‑ Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 209A‑‑‑CBDT Circular No. 240, dated 17‑5‑1978. Held, that the Tribunal had not considered the ambit and scope of section 209A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 1978, with effect from June 1, 1978, which was germane for the assessment years in question. The ambit and the scope of section 209A inserted by the Finance Act, 1978, had been elaborated in the Department Circular No.240, dated May 17, 1978. Neither the circular nor any other material had been looked into by the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax, and that the assessee was not under legal obligation to file an estimate of advance tax. [Matter remanded.] P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. Balachandran for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
OM PRAKASH, C.J.‑‑‑The Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1982‑83 for the opinion of this Court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that the interest was not leviable under section 217(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that the assessee was (sic‑‑not) liable to file an estimate for advance tax?" The finding of the Appellate Tribunal in regard to the above questions is brief and is reproduced below: "Coming to the facts of this case also; the assessee was not liable to pay any advance tax nor was any notice served on the assessee for the purpose. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to file an estimate of the advance tax. So, the view of the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) that an appeal against the levy of interest under section 217 is not maintainable was not correct and we interfere with his fording and set aside the same. " The submission of learned senior standing counsel before us is that the Appellate Tribunal has not considered the ambit and scope of section 209A inserted by the Finance Act, 1978, with effect from June 1, 1978 which is germane for the assessment years in question. The submission of senior standing counsel is that before reaching the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay any advance tax or to file an estimate of the advance tax, the Appellate Tribunal has not given any reasoning and whatever reasoning is given that is wholly irrelevant. We see force in this submission of senior standing counsel. The ambit and the scope of section 209A inserted by the Finance Act, 1978, has been elaborated in the Department Circular No.240 (see (1979) 117 ITR (St.) 17), dated 17th May, 1978. Neither has the circular nor has any other material been looked into by the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax, nor was the assessee under legal obligation to file an estimate of the advance tax. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration and we do so now. In view of the above observations no final view is expressed on the questions referred to this Court. The questions are returned unanswered with the observations that the Appellate Tribunal will reconsider the relevant issues taking into consideration the relevant materials and the statutory provisions and then record a finding giving reasons as to whether the assessee was liable to pay advance tax and was under legal obligation to file an estimate of the advance tax. The reference is disposed of accordingly. M.B.A/215/FC Order accordingly.