| Case ID |
ffd83d76-8146-4aa4-89a2-1df0b24f052a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Tribunal was not justified in holding that section 140A(3) was ultra vires. The authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961, including the ITO, AAC, and Tribunal, do not have the jurisdiction to pronounce upon the constitutional validity of the Act's provisions. The Tribunal's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits. The High Court emphasized that unless the Supreme Court or the High Court of the concerned State declares a provision ultra vires, it must be considered constitutionally valid. |
| Summary |
This case, heard by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, revolves around the jurisdiction of the Income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal regarding the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main question was whether the Tribunal was right in holding section 140A(3) of the Act as ultra vires, based on a previous decision by the Madras High Court. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, highlighting the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and High Court in reference under section 256 to declare any provisions of the Act as ultra vires. The High Court ruled that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect, emphasizing that only the Supreme Court or the High Court of the concerned State under article 226 could declare a provision ultra vires. This ruling underscores the limited jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and High Courts in tax matters and reinforces the constitutional validity of legislative provisions unless declared otherwise by competent courts. The outcome of this case has implications for legal practitioners and taxpayers, ensuring that constitutional challenges to tax provisions are confined to appropriate judicial forums. Keywords: Income-tax Act 1961, ultra vires, Tribunal jurisdiction, constitutional validity, High Court decision. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
GOKAL CHAND MITAL,
S.S. SODHI
|
| Lawyers |
L.K. Sood,
S.S. Mahajan,
B.S. Gupta,
Sanjay Bansal
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Ved Parkash
|
| Citations |
1989 SLD 2551,
1989 178 ITR 332
|
| Other Citations |
A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 116,
CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.),
CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal and Co. [1981] 127 ITR 512 (MP),
Gunny Exporters (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1976 Tax LR 603 (Cal.),
Kashiram v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 825 (AP),
Seva Ram v. ITO [1983] 141 ITR 933 (J & K),
Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. v. ITAT [1985] 151 ITR 127 (Raj.),
K. Sampangirama Raju v. Fifth ITO [1988] 173 ITR 609 (Kar.),
Mary Issac v. IAC [1987] 163 ITR 341 (Ker.),
K.S. Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras [1966] 60 ITR 112 (SC),
C.T. Senthilnathan Chettiar v. State of Madras [1968] 67 ITR 102 (SC),
Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 491 (Bom.),
Mysore Breweries Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 723 (Kar.),
Patil Vijaykumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
254,
140A(1),
140A(3),
256
|