AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The writ appeals are filed by against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.12.2000 made in W.P. Nos.
10663 and 10664 of 1998.
The appellant herein preferred revision petitions u/s 264 of the I.T. Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax claiming relief that the
electricity subsidy received by the appellant from the Government of India in a sum of Rs. 56,16,456 and Rs. 64,56,107/- for the assessment
years 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively may be treated as capital receipt. The Commissioner of Income Tax, the first respondent herein granted
the relief as sought for by the appellant herein in his order dated 30.4.1997. However subsequent to that a rectification proceedings was sought to
be taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax as there was a mistake apparent from the record. In the rectification proceedings, the Commissioner
of Income Tax by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. etc. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad, held that the power tariff subsidy was given to the assessee company after it had
commenced its production and hence the subsidy received by the appellant were to be treated as revenue receipt. The order of the Commissioner
of Income Tax was challenged before this Court by way of writ petition on the ground that as there was no mistake apparent from the record, the
order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 264 cannot be rectified based on the subsequent decision of the Supreme court. By order
dated 8.12.2000, the learned single Judge rejected the plea of the assessee on the ground that the rectification proceedings were initiated on the
strength of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court M/s. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. etc. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad, declaring the law on the points that had been dealt with by the Commissioner in his
earlier order and consequently the learned single Judge held that the order of the Commissioner could not be said to be suffering from any illegality.
The said order is now put in issue before this Court in the present writ appeals.
A perusal of the order of the learned single Judge shows that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the first respondent herein was
upheld by this Court on the ground that when the law declared by the Apex Court in the above said decision on the points that had been dealt with
the Commissioner has been followed by the Commissioner, there is no need to interfere with the order of the Commissioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. Learned Counsel for the assessee however,
submitted that the facts of the case dealt with by the Apex Court stand on a different footing which is based on the power subsidy scheme
implemented by Andhra Pradesh Government. Hence, he prayed for reversing the order of the learned single Judge. We do not agree.
Having regard to the fact that the issue has to be decided on the facts of the case projected and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in
M/s. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. etc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad, , it is but proper
that the appellant approaches the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax the second respondent herein to consider their claim in accordance with
law. Hence, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we direct the appellant herein to
make their representation before the assessing authority, the second respondent herein on or before 20.12.2007 with the objections and necessary
materials to support their claim. After considering the same, the assessing authority shall pass order in terms of the law declared by the Apex Court
in the decision cited above. It is made clear that if the appellant assessee fails to make their representation on 20.12.2007, it is open to the
authorities concerned to pass orders finalising the assessment order in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, the first
respondent herein u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act.
With these observations, the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs.