{"id":20533,"date":"2019-04-29T11:21:51","date_gmt":"2019-04-29T05:51:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=20533"},"modified":"2019-04-29T11:21:51","modified_gmt":"2019-04-29T05:51:51","slug":"pcit-vs-yes-bank-ltd-supreme-court-s-260a-the-high-court-cannot-hear-the-appeal-bipartite-without-framing-any-substantial-question-of-law-it-should-either-dismiss-the-appeal-in-limine-on-the-ground","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/pcit-vs-yes-bank-ltd-supreme-court-s-260a-the-high-court-cannot-hear-the-appeal-bipartite-without-framing-any-substantial-question-of-law-it-should-either-dismiss-the-appeal-in-limine-on-the-ground\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT vs. Yes Bank Ltd (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"
See also PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd<\/a> (Supreme Court) <\/div>\n

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
\nCIVIL APPEAL No.3148 OF 2019
\n(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.7118 of 2018)
\nThe Principal Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax8
\n\u2026.Appellant(s)
\nVERSUS
\nM\/s Yes Bank Ltd. \u2026.Respondent(s)
\nJ U D G M E N T
\nAbhay Manohar Sapre, J.
\n1. Leave granted.
\n2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
\nand order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Bombay in ITA No.599\/2015
\nwhereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed
\nby the appellant herein.<\/p>\n

3. This appeal involves a short point as would be
\nclear from the facts stated infra.
\n4. The appellant is the Union of India (Income
\nTax Department) and the respondentBank
\nis the
\nassessee.
\n5. In the course of assessment proceedings of the
\nrespondentassessee(
\nBank) for the Assessment Year
\n20072008,
\nthe question arose as to whether the
\nrespondentassessee(
\nBank) was entitled to claim
\ndeduction under Section 35D
\nof the Income Tax
\nAct, 1961 (for short, \u201cthe Act\u201d) for the Assessment
\nYear in question. In other words, the question arose
\nas to whether the respondentBank
\nis an industrial
\nundertaking so as to entitle them to claim deduction
\nunder Section 35D
\nof the Act.
\n6. The case of the respondent was that they,
\nbeing an industrial undertaking, are entitled to
\nclaim the deduction under Section 35D
\nof the Act.<\/p>\n

The Assessing Officer passed an order dated
\n31.10.2009 which gave rise to the proceedings
\nbefore the Commissioner under Section 263 of the
\nAct which resulted in passing of an adverse order
\ndated 14.11.2011 by the Commissioner.
\n7. This gave rise to filing of the appeal by the
\nrespondent before the ITAT against the order of the
\nCommissioner. By order dated 05.12.2014, the ITAT
\nallowed the appeal which gave rise to filing of the
\nappeal by the Revenue (Income Tax Department) in
\nthe High Court under Section 260A
\nof the Act.
\n8. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed
\nthe appeal after hearing both the parties giving rise
\nto filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this
\nCourt.
\n9. So, the short question that arises for
\nconsideration in this appeal, is whether the High
\nCourt was justified in dismissing the appellant’s
\nappeal.
\n10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
\nparties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
\nare constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the
\nimpugned order and remand the case to the High
\nCourt for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in
\naccordance with law.
\n11. In our view, the need to remand the case to
\nthe High Court is called for due to the following
\nreasons.
\n12. First, the High Court did not frame any
\nsubstantial question of law as is required to be
\nframed under Section 260A
\nof the Act though
\nheard the appeal bipartite. In other words, the High
\nCourt did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the
\nground that the appeal does not involve any
\nsubstantial question of law; Second, the High Court
\ndismissed the appeal without deciding any issue
\narising in the case saying that it is not necessary.
\n(see para 6).
\n13. Third, the main issue involved in this appeal,
\nas rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6,
\nwas with regard to the applicability of Section 35D
\nof the Act to the respondentassessee(
\nBank). It was,
\nhowever, not decided.
\n14. In our view, the High Court should have
\nframed the substantial question of law on the
\napplicability of Section 35D
\nof the Act in addition to
\nother questions and then should have answered
\nthem in accordance with law rather than to leave
\nthe question(s) undecided.
\n15. It was brought to our notice that the issue with
\nregard to applicability of Section 35D
\nof the Act to
\nthe respondentBank
\nis already pending
\nconsideration before the High Court at the instance
\nof the respondent in one appeal. If that be so, both
\nthe appeals, in our view, should be decided
\ntogether.
\n16. It is for all these reasons, we are of the view
\nthat the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
\n17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
\nsucceeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned
\norder is set aside. The appeal is accordingly
\nremanded to the High Court for its decision on
\nmerits in accordance with law along with another
\nappeal, if pending, after framing proper substantial
\nquestion(s) of law arising in the case.
\n18. We have not expressed any opinion on the
\nmerits of the case having formed an opinion to
\nremand the appeal to the High Court for its disposal
\non the merits afresh. The High Court will
\naccordingly decide the appeal uninfluenced by any
\nobservations made in the impugned order and this
\norder.
\n\u2026\u2026\u2026……………………………..J.
\n[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
\n\u2026…\u2026\u2026…………………………….J.
\n[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
\nNew Delhi;
\nMarch 15, 2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as is required to be framed under Section 260A of the Act though heard the appeal bipartite. In other words, the High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law; Second, the High Court dismissed the appeal without deciding any issue arising in the case saying that it is not necessary<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court","judges-abhay-manohar-sapre-j","judges-dinesh-maheshwari-j","section-260a","section-55","section-35d","counsel-499","court-supreme-court","catchwords-substantial-question-of-law","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20533\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}