Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kinetic Engineering Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0511-1]

Citation 2015-LL-0511-1
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name Kinetic Engineering Ltd.
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 11/05/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: High Court of Bombay has while dismissing Income Tax Appeal No.1020 of 2009 primarily placed reliance upon the fact that the issues raised in the said appeal relevant to assessment year 1996-97 were similar to those arising for assessment years 1991-1992 to 1994-1995 orders regarding which years have not been assailed by the department. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the High Court has committed a factual mistake in observing that orders relevant to assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95 had not been assailed in appeal. As a matter of fact Income Tax Appeals No.306 to 312 of 2006 relevant to those years were also before the High Court which were dismissed 3 by the High Court on the ground of the appellant s failure to remove certain office objections. In the above backdrop, we see no reason why the order passed by the High Court should not be set aside and the matter remitted back to the High Court for hearing and disposal along with Income Tax appeals relevant to the years 1991-1992 to 1994-1995. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court with the request that the appeals be heard together and disposed off in accordance with law.... J. ... J. New Delhi, May 11, 2015 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal No(s). The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. The present appeal shall be governed by the said decision.


ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA 1 ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17577/2011 (From judgment and order dated 17.09.2009 OF HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1020 of 2009) C.I.T.,MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 11/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. MR. Rajeev Nanda, Adv. MR. Smaeer Kachawaha,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, Adv. Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Ms. Pragya Baghel,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R Leave granted. appeal is allowed in terms of signed order. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by (Shashi Sareen) Shashi Sareen Date: 2015.06.30 (Veena Khera) 08:53:39 IST Court Master Reason: Court Master (Signed order is placed on file) 2 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 4341 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.17577 of 2011) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Versus KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD. Respondent ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. High Court of Bombay has while dismissing Income Tax Appeal No.1020 of 2009 primarily placed reliance upon fact that issues raised in said appeal relevant to assessment year 1996-97 were similar to those arising for assessment years 1991-1992 to 1994-1995 orders regarding which years have not been assailed by department. Learned counsel for appellant, however, points out that High Court has committed factual mistake in observing that orders relevant to assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95 had not been assailed in appeal. As matter of fact Income Tax Appeals No.306 to 312 of 2006 relevant to those years were also before High Court which were dismissed 3 by High Court on ground of appellant s failure to remove certain office objections. It is urged that High Court has upon applications moved by appellant recalled orders of dismissal and restored said appeals which are currently pending adjudication. To same effect is additional affidavit filed by learned counsel for appellant and certain documents placed on record before us. In above backdrop, we see no reason why order passed by High Court should not be set aside and matter remitted back to High Court for hearing and disposal along with Income Tax appeals relevant to years 1991-1992 to 1994-1995. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside order passed by High Court and remit matter back to High Court with request that appeals be heard together and disposed off in accordance with law. . .. J. (T.S. THAKUR) . .. J. (R.BANUMATHI) New Delhi, May 11, 2015 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11286/2001 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/08/2000 in ITA No. 36/1999 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BEREILLY Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. KISAN SHEHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report for direction) Date : 27/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arjjit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Amlan Kumar Ghosh, AOR UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R Leave granted. appeal is disposed of in terms of signed order. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.05.15 17:13:54 IST Court Master Court Master Reason: (Signed order is placed on file) IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4065 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11286 of 2001) Commissioner of Income Tax, Bereilly Appellant VERSUS M/S. Kisan Shehkari Chini Mills Ltd. Respondent O R D E R Leave granted. Learned counsel for parties very fairly stated that controversy is covered by decision delivered on 24.03.2015 in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gauhati & Ors. vs. M/s. Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos.9133-9134 of 2003). present appeal shall be governed by said decision. appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ................,J. (Dipak Misra) ................,J. (Prafulla C. Pant) New Delhi; April 27, 2015. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kinetic Engineering Ltd
Report Error