| Case ID |
15f1a617-02ce-4b58-8ee4-14d519fddd9e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Income-tax References Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 55 of 19 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 28, 1997 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court reversed the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, stating that the original assessment orders had been dealt with in revision by the Commissioner. The court held that the questions regarding whether the petitioner was a manufacturing company and entitled to a lower rate of tax were adjudicated upon and decided adversely to the assessee by the Commissioner’s order dated March 28, 1972. Therefore, the assessment orders merged into the Commissioner’s revisional order, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not pass any order that would rectify the original assessment orders, which had ceased to exist as per the doctrine of merger. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a dispute over income tax assessments for a publishing company treated as a non-manufacturing entity. The core issue was whether the company was entitled to a concessional tax rate as a manufacturing concern under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Tribunal had earlier ruled in favor of the assessee, but the High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the doctrine of merger in judicial review. The court clarified that the previous orders of the Income-tax Officer had merged into the Commissioner’s revisional order, making the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner incompetent. This case highlights the importance of understanding the merger doctrine in tax law and its implications for the right of appeal and rectification under the Income Tax Act. The ruling reinforces the principle that an order that has been subjected to superior scrutiny ceases to exist as an operative order, thereby impacting the rights of the parties involved significantly. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
R. C. Lahoti,
J. K. Mehra
|
| Lawyers |
Sanjeev Khanna,
Ms. Prem Lata Bansal,
Ajay Jha
|
| Petitioners |
COMMISSIONER OF Income tax
|
| Respondents |
EURASIA PUBLISHING HOUSE (P.) LTD
|
| Citations |
2000 SLD 268,
2000 PTD 789,
(1998) 232 ITR 381
|
| Other Citations |
Amrit Sagar Gupta v. Sudesh Behari Lal AIR 1970 SC 5,
CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC),
CIT v. Indian Institute of Public-Opinion Co. (P:) Ltd. (1982) 134 ITR 23 (Delhi),
CIT (Addl.) v. Motors and General Finance Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 424 (Delhi),
Balaram (T.S.) v. Voikart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC),
Gojer Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Shri Ratan Lal Singh AIR 1974 SC 1380,
Jokhan Rai v. Baikunth Singh AIR 1987 Pat. 133,
Mirza Muzamdar Hussain v. Dodla Bhaskara Reddy AIR 1988 AP 13,
Nanikutty Amma Kamalamma v. Trivandrum Permanent Bank AIR 1987 Ker. 161,
Rathore (S. S.) v. State of M. P. (1989) 74 FJR 425,
AIR 1990 SC 10,
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Thirumale AIR 1960 SC 137,
Shanmugam (K. M.) v. S. R. V. S. (P.) Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1626,
Sita Ram Goel v. Municipal Board, Kanpur AIR 1958 SC 1036,
Venkatachalam (M.K.), ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
154,
264
|