Case Law Details
Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)…… /2011
(CC 21465/2011)
(From the judgment and order dated 26/04/2011 in ITA No.6/1995 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)
C.I.T
VERSUS
M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES P.LTD.
(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
Date: 02/07/2012
This Petition was called on for hearing today.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Delay condoned. In the present case, the Assessment Year is of 1987-88. Hence, we do not wish to interfere. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we wish to reiterate our observations in the case of C.I.T. Central-III vs. Surya Herbal Ltd. in S.L.P. (C) No of 2011 (CC 13694/2011):
“Delay condoned.
Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto.
For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.”
[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Indu Satija ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
