Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Coral Telecom 03.12.2013 Full Bench
CIT Vs Coral Telecom
ITA No. 4 of 2009. Date of Decision: December 3,2013.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Income Tax Act
For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Adarsh K.Vashista, Advocate.
Dev Darshan Sud,J(Oral).
FACTS OF THE CASE
This petition has been referred to the Full Bench to resolve the question as to whether the decision of this Court in Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another in ITA No. 39 of 2006 disposed of on 7th November, 2009 is in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. Commissioner Income Tax, (2009) 9 SCC 328. Submission made before the learned Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice was that the appellant questions the correctness of the decision in Spray Engineering Devices Ltd which has misinterpreted and mis-applied the law in Liberty India’s case supra. What was submitted was that the paragraphs 23 to 36 in Liberty India’s case supra have not been considered, rather glossed over in the judgment of the Division Bench.
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT
2. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties at length and we do not find that the question requires any answer from the Full Bench. The decision in Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. has attained finality as it is admitted before us that it was not challenged in appeal before the Supreme Court. Every submission made by a party that some portion of the judgment of the apex Court or this Court has not been replicated/considered while disposing of a particular case, does not call for intervention by a Full Bench for setting aside the previous decision. It is always open to the petitioner to urge that the decision cited in a particular case is distinguishable and that on facts and law such a decision is not applicable to the controversy before this Court in a particular case. We, therefore, decline the reference. We have not expressed any opinion on the correctness or applicability of the ratio of the judgments and leave it open to the learned Bench seized of the matter to proceed further in accordance with law.
3. Let the case be placed before the Hon’ble Division Bench for consideration in accordance with law on the questions on which it was admitted.