Director of Income-tax (IT)-­1 v. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank
[Citation -2014-LL-0918-32]

Citation 2014-LL-0918-32
Appellant Name Director of Income-tax (IT)-­1
Respondent Name M/s. Standard Chartered Bank
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 18/09/2014
Assessment Year 1995-96
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags interest tax • substantial question law
Bot Summary: In so far as the second question is concerned, the same reads as under: Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and y in law, the ITAT erred in holding that the deduction of ba Rs.35,01,793/ on account of interest tax liability on the ground that after giving effect to Commissioner of Income Tax om order, the interest tax liability is revised to Rs.4,04,98,753/ from Rs.3,63,96,960/ 6 Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that this is certainly a substantial question B of law. Mr. Tejveer Singh would submit that the facts which appear to be undisputed are that the Assessee had an Interest Tax Order against it passed on 10th March, 1998 by the Assessing Officer. The direction rt as contained in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax led to the Assessing Officer making an order dated 30 th June, 2000. In the proceedings which arose out of the Assessing Officer's order and impugned before the Commissioner, the h Assessee pointed out that a deduction of Rs.3, 69,96,960/ has already ig been granted towards interest tax payable. The original rt order of the Commissioner, the merits of the consequential order of the Assessing Officer dated 30th June, 2000 are all not questioned by the ou Revenue. The consequential order was questioned by the Assessee since it did not give effect to the earlier order of the First Appellate Authority, C namely, the Commissioner in its entirety. We find the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has given a finding that pursuant to learned Commissioner of Income Tax's order in the interest tax assessment for assessment year 1995 96 the interest tax y liability in the case of the assessee has been determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.4,04,98,753/.


*1* 903.itxa912.12 sbw IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY rt ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.912 OF 2012 ou Director of Income Tax (IT) 1 ..Appellant Versus M/s. Standard Chartered Bank ..Respondent C ........... Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr. Ajit Shah with Srihari M. Iyer for Respondent. h ........... igCORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON, JJ. H DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2014 P.C.: y 1] Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned counsel, appearing for ba Revenue in support of this Appeal which impugns order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1769/Mum/2003 dated 18 th om November, 2011, we are of opinion that both questions and which are termed as substantial questions of law by Revenue, cannot be entertained. B 2] order pertains to assessment year 1995 96. 3] In relation to first question and which is termed as substantial question of law, Mr. Tejveer Singh has been fair enough to bring to our 1/5 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 10:58:55 ::: *2* 903.itxa912.12 notice judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of rt Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. reported in (2003) 262 ITR 55. ou 4] Upon perusal of these questions, what we find is that Tribunal followed its own decision in case of this very Assessee for assessment C years 1994 95 and 1996 97 rendered in Income Tax Application No.5239/Mum/2004 on 13th June, 2011. h 5] judgment in case of Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. is ig rendered on 30th April, 2003. In view thereof, we do not think that H question can be termed as substantial question of law. In so far as second question is concerned, same reads as under: Whether on facts and circumstances of case and y in law, ITAT erred in holding that deduction of ba Rs.35,01,793/ on account of interest tax liability on ground that after giving effect to Commissioner of Income Tax om (Appeals) order, interest tax liability is revised to Rs.4,04,98,753/ from Rs.3,63,96,960/ ? 6] Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that this is certainly substantial question B of law. Mr. Tejveer Singh would submit that facts which appear to be undisputed are that Assessee had Interest Tax Order against it passed on 10th March, 1998 by Assessing Officer. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XIV allowed Appeal against this order and , 2/5 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 10:58:55 ::: *3* 903.itxa912.12 passed direction in favour of Assessee. Consequently, direction rt as contained in order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) led to Assessing Officer making order dated 30 th June, 2000. In ou other words, he made consequential order, following direction of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He revised interest tax C liability at Rs.4,04,98,753/ . In proceedings which arose out of Assessing Officer's order and impugned before Commissioner, h Assessee pointed out that deduction of Rs.3, 69,96,960/ has already ig been granted towards interest tax payable. Assessing Officer, H therefore, be directed to allow further deduction of Rs.35,01,793/ . This is what precisely Commissioner did on 23 rd December, 2002 in present case. When matter was carried by Revenue, ground y ba No.7 has been noted by Tribunal at para 13 of impugned order. We are not in agreement with Mr. Tejveer Singh because Revenue did om not in any manner assail legality of exercise and what Revenue projected was grievance that consequential order passed by Assessing Officer could not have been made. Commissioner himself B while making earlier order should have restored questions to file of Assessing Officer. Commissioner decided question himself and directed Assessing Officer to pass consequential order. It is this consequential order and manner in which same was made 3/5 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 10:58:55 ::: *4* 903.itxa912.12 that was challenged by Revenue before Tribunal. original rt order of Commissioner, merits of consequential order of Assessing Officer dated 30th June, 2000 are all not questioned by ou Revenue. consequential order was questioned by Assessee since it did not give effect to earlier order of First Appellate Authority, C namely, Commissioner in its entirety. Such being nature of grievance, we do not find that Tribunal's order and for reasons h assigned in para 15 can be said to be raising any substantial question of ig law. Tribunal in para 15 of order under challenge held as under: H 15. We find learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given finding that pursuant to learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order in interest tax assessment for assessment year 1995 96 interest tax y liability in case of assessee has been determined by Assessing Officer at Rs.4,04,98,753/ . Since Assessing ba Officer has already allowed deduction of Rs.3,69,96,960/ , therefore, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in our opinion, was justifed in directing Assessing Officer to allow balance amount of Rs.35,01,793/ . ground om raised by Revenue is therefore dismissed. 7] On careful perusal of reasoning, we are of opinion that B controversy was essentially factual. In given facts and circumstances, neither Commissioner nor Tribunal has decided anything which has impact on any proceedings which Revenue may initiate in case of present Assessee or any other Assessee. There is no legal issue 4/5 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 10:58:55 ::: *5* 903.itxa912.12 or question to be answered. In such circumstances, this Appeal cannot be rt entertained as it does not raise any substantial question of law. It is dismissed. No costs. ou C (A. K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) h ig H wadhwa y ba om B 5/5 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 10:58:55 ::: Director of Income-tax (IT)-­1 v. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank
Report Error