Central India Electric Supply Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 14561 of 1996
Petitioner: Central India Electric Supply Company
Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 14561 of 1996
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 08, 2000
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax Act, 1961
Sections 147 (a) and 41(2) – Question on reference, about reopening of the assessment and accrual of income to assessee – High Court answering questions in favour of Revenue – Award made rule of Court – Award
becoming due to assessee. Held that High Court was right in answering the questions against the assessee.
(Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, read the judgment of the High Court under appeal and the judgment of the Tribunal, which the High Court reversed. We are of the view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the High Court was right in answering the following two questions in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
“(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no income accrued to the assessee under Section 41 (2) of the Income Tax Act in the Assessment Year 1970-71 ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the I.T.O. was not justified in reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 1970-71 under Section 147 (a) of the Income Tax Act ?”
2. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the parameters of Section 147 (a) of the Income Tax Act were satisfied for the purposes of reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 1970-71.
3. It was also justified in coming to the conclusion that income had accrued to the assessee under Section 41(2) of the Act in the Assessment Year 1970-71. It is clear from the facts that the dispute before the District Judge, the High Court and this Court, in regard to the umpires’ award, made a rule of the court, was restricted to an amount of Rs. 60,000/- and to interest. Therefore, the balance of the amount awarded became due to the appellant when the award was made a rule of the Court within the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1970-71.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, read the judgment of the High Court under appeal and the judgment of the Tribunal, which the High Court reversed. We are of the view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the High Court was right in answering the following two questions in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
“(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no income accrued to the assessee under Section 41 (2) of the Income Tax Act in the Assessment Year 1970-71 ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the I.T.O. was not justified in reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 1970-71 under Section 147 (a) of the Income Tax Act ?”
2. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the parameters of Section 147 (a) of the Income Tax Act were satisfied for the purposes of reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 1970-71.
3. It was also justified in coming to the conclusion that income had accrued to the assessee under Section 41(2) of the Act in the Assessment Year 1970-71. It is clear from the facts that the dispute before the District Judge, the High Court and this Court, in regard to the umpires’ award, made a rule of the court, was restricted to an amount of Rs. 60,000/- and to interest. Therefore, the balance of the amount awarded became due to the appellant when the award was made a rule of the Court within the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1970-71.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
