DR. K. SATYANARAYANA VS INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
1999 P T D 1573
[226 I T R 911]
[Andhra Pradesh High Court (India)]
Before dyed Shah Mohammed Quadra and Y. V. Narayana, JJ
Dr. K. SATYANARAYANA
Versus
INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another
Writ Petition No.6096 of 1996, decided on 26/03/1996.
Writ---
--Alternative remedy---Scheme of remedies provided under Income-tax Act against order of Tribunal---Writ Petition challenging validity of order of Tribunal cannot be entertained---That assessee can obtain interim order in writ jurisdiction is not a ground for entertaining writ petition-- Contention that Tribunal failed to follow judgment of High Court---Tribunal considered decision of High Court and distinguished it---Writ petition not maintainable---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(1), (2)---Constitution of India, Art.226.
For the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, the dividends received by the petitioner were added as income without allowing the deduction claimed by the petitioner. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee before it. On a writ petition, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to follow the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Kovur Textiles & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 61 (AP) and, therefore, it had committed gross illegality which could be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and also that in a case of reference, the petitioner could not claim stay of recovery of tax from the High Court:
Held, (i) that the contention of the petitioner could not be acceded to, firstly, because the judgment of the High Court in CIT v. Kovur Textiles (1982) 136 ITR 61 (AP) was considered by the Tribunal and distinguished by it and secondly, because the scheme of the Income-tax Act provides for a reference to-the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Revenue. An opportunity is given to the assessee to file an application before the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law raised before it. If the Tribunal agrees that any question of law arises from the judgment of the Tribunal, it has to refer the same to the High Court. But if the Tribunal feels that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal, it can reject the application. As against the order of rejection by the Tribunal, the assessee or the Revenue, as the case might be, is given the right to approach the High Court under section 256(2). If the High Court finds that a question of law does arise, the Court can direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law. For this reason, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal could not be entertained.
(ii) That the reason that the petitioner could obtain interim order under Article 226 of the Constitution could hardly be a ground to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself.
CIT v. Kovur Textiles & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 61 (AP) ref.
C. Kodanda Ram for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
JUDGMENT
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.---The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the first respondent herein, dated January 17, 1996, in I.T. As. Nos.835 and 836/Hyd of 1994.
The petitioner is an income-tax assessee. His income is assessable under the head "Salary". He is also subscribing to chit funds of various companies and receiving dividends from them. On the question of computation of taxable income for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, the dividends received were added as income and without allowing the deductions claimed by the petitioner, the second respondent passed the assessment order. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hyderabad. But the same was dismissed by the Commissioner. The petitioner then carried the matter in second appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent by order, dated January 17, 1996, dismissed the appeal. It is the correctness of that order that is assailed in this writ petition.
Mr. C. Kodanda Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal failed to follow the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, therefore, it has committed gross illegality which could be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention of learned counsel, firstly, because the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Kovur Textiles & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 61, was considered by the Tribunal and distinguished and secondly, because the scheme of the Income-tax Act provides a reference to this Court under section 256 at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Revenue. An opportunity is given to the assessee to file an application before the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law raised before it. If the Tribunal agrees that any question of law arises from the judgment of the Tribunal, it has to refer the same to this Court. But if the Tribunal feels that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal, it can reject the application. As against the order of rejection by the Tribunal, the assessee or the Revenue, as the case may be, is given the right to approach this Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.
If this Court finds that a question of law does arise, the Court can direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law. For this reason, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal cannot be entertained. Further, it is also submitted by learned counsel that in a case of reference, the petitioner cannot claim stay of recovery of tax from this Court. In our view the reason that the petitioner can obtain interim order under Article 226 of the Constitution, can hardly be a ground to entertain the writ petition.
For the above reasons, we do not see any ground to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
M.B.A./1985/FCPetition dismissed