CIT Vs New Punjab Motor Transport (Jharkhand High Court)
Jharkhand High Court held that order solely based on the judgement which has been later on over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court requires interference and hence the order passed by ITAT is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Facts- The Assessee filed return disclosing total income of Rs. 9,36,120/-. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Finally, AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 8,99,42,090/-.
CIT(A) vide order dated 29-08-2014 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained few additions made by the Assessment Officer. The assessee as well as the Revenue Authority challenged the Order of the CIT (A) before ITAT. Tribunal vide its common order dated 11-03-2016 has been pleased to allow the case of the assessee and dismissed the case of the revenue, and deleted the entire addition made by the AO. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the sole consideration taken by the forum is the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd., which has been over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Service Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, holding therein that the Allahabad High Court has not laid down good law; meaning thereby the error has been rectified by the Hon’ble Apex Court, said to be committed by the Allahabad High Court, by laying down the correct law. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors., will have retrospective application. This Court, taking into consideration the fact the forum has passed the impugned order solely taking into consideration the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. which has been over-ruled holding the same to be not good in law by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as such it is not rendered to be in existence, as such the impugned order requires interference.
