COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. PAMWI TISSUES LTD
[Citation -2008-LL-0204]

Citation 2008-LL-0204
Appellant Name COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Respondent Name PAMWI TISSUES LTD.
Court HC
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/02/2008
Assessment Year 1990-91
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags contribution to provident fund
Bot Summary: JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by F. I. Rebello J.#151;The Revenue has preferred the appeal on the following question: The substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal is regarding the correct interpretation of sections 43B, 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) and as to the claim of deductions as claimed by the assessee in respect of the PF, EPF and ESIC contributions especially in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. On behalf of the respondents learned counsel draws our attention to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. George Williamson Ltd. 2006 284 ITR 619. The High Court in the appeal preferred by the Revenue was pleased to hold that they are not inclined to review the decision in CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Timber Suppliers 1996 219 ITR 212 and CIT v. Assam Tribune 2002 253 ITR 93. The learned counsel points out that the Revenue had preferred special leave petition in the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. 2009 313 ITR 1. The learned counsel then draws our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India 1989 4 SCC 187 to point out that if the Supreme Court has given reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, that will attract article 14 of the Constitution. Otherwise a mere dismissal of a special leave petition as held in Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Bihar 1987 167 ITR 897 which does not indicate the grounds or reasons of dismissal by necessary implication it must be taken that the Supreme Court decided that it was not a fit case for a special leave petition. In State of Orissa v. M. D. Illyas 2006 1 SCC 275 the Supreme Court has held that a decision is a precedent on its own facts and that for a judgment to be a precedent it must contain the three basic postulates.


JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by F. I. Rebello J.—The Revenue has preferred appeal on following question: "The substantial question of law which arises in present appeal is regarding correct interpretation of sections 43B, 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) and as to claim of deductions as claimed by assessee in respect of PF, EPF and ESIC contributions especially in facts and circumstances of case and in law." We are concerned with assessment year 1990-91. In respect of very issue this court in Income-tax Appeal No. 256 of 2007. CIT v. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 149, decided on October 8, 2007, held that in so far as provident fund dues are concerned amendment is made applicable from assessment year 2004-05. section as it stood earlier was that employers` contribution to provident fund if not paid within due date employer was not entitled to deduction. Considering said judgment and finding appeal will have to be allowed. On behalf of respondents, however, learned counsel draws our attention to judgment of Gauhati High Court in CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619. issue there was contribution of provident fund dues after closing of accounting period, but before due date of filing returns. assessment year was 1992-93. Gauhati High Court followed its earlier judgments. High Court in appeal preferred by Revenue was pleased to hold that they are not inclined to review decision in CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Timber Suppliers [1996] 219 ITR 212 and CIT v. Assam Tribune [2002] 253 ITR 93 (Gauhati). learned counsel points out that Revenue had preferred special leave petition in Supreme Court in CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1. It is pointed out that one of appeals was subject-matter in special leave petition in Supreme Court and Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss special leave petition. learned counsel then draws our attention to judgment of Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India [1989] 4 SCC 187 to point out that if Supreme Court has given reasons for dismissing special leave petition, that will attract article 14 of Constitution. Otherwise mere dismissal of special leave petition as held in Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Bihar [1987] 167 ITR 897 (SC) which does not indicate grounds or reasons of dismissal by necessary implication it must be taken that Supreme Court decided that it was not fit case for special leave petition. Based on this it is sought to be submitted that Supreme Court while dismissing special leave petition has given reasons and consequently that it would be binding precedent. In our opinion, dismissal of special leave petition as held in CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1 cannot be said to be law decided. In State of Orissa v. M. D. Illyas [2006] 1 SCC 275 Supreme Court has held that decision is precedent on its own facts and that for judgment to be precedent it must contain three basic postulates. finding of material facts, direct and inferential. inferential finding of fact is inference which judge draws from direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of principles of law applicable to legal problems disclosed by facts; and (iii) judgment based on individual effect of above. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur [1989] 1 SCC 101 Supreme Court has set out tests of finding principle which is binding. Considering those judgments and in light of judgment of this court appeal filed by Revenue will have to be allowed. Consequently, appeal on questing of law as filed is allowed. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. PAMWI TISSUES LTD.
Report Error