2001 P T D 1407

[245 I T R 1]

[Supreme Court of India]

Present: D.P. Wadhwa and M. B. Shah, JJ

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX

versus

GUJARAT STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD.

C.A. No. 6650 of 1995, decided op 23rd February, 2000.

Income-tax---

‑‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Income of authority constituted for marketing of commodities, from letting out godowns or warehouses‑‑‑Interest income and other income of such authority, whether entitled to exemption‑‑‑ Conflict of opinion in decisions of Supreme Court‑‑‑Matter to be placed before a larger Bench of Supreme Court‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 10(29).

Held, that on the question of exemption under section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC) the Court had taken a somewhat different view, particularly, with regard to the interest income from that taken in the decision on which earlier special leave petitions were dismissed. Accordingly, the matter had to be placed before the Chief Justice for directions for placing the matter before a larger Bench for decision.

Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CM (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC); Union of India v. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation (1991) 187 ITR 54 (SC) and U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. ITO (1974) 94‑ITR 129 (All.) ref.

K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik and Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates with him) for Appellant.

B.V. Desai and Siddhartha Chowdhary, Advocates for Respondent.

ORDER

The Revenue sought reference on the following questions of law for opinion of the High Court:

"(1) Whether the claim of the assessee ‑for exemption under sec tion 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the interest income of Rs.6,03,374, staff quarters rent of Rs.5,147, miscellaneous income of Rs.5,647 and supervision charges of Rs.79,081 was rightly accepted by the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal?

(2) Whether the income received by the assessee from any source other than from letting of godowns or warehouses is exempt under section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"

Applications under sections 256(1) and 256(2) by the Revenue were dismissed.

Aggrieved, the Revenue came to this Court. The assessment year involved is 1981‑82. We find that on similar questions for the two assessment years viz., 1979‑80 and 1983‑84, this Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by the Revenue by the following order:

S.L.P. (C) Nos.8701 of 1993 and 8808 of 1986:

"Delay condoned.

In view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. U.P. State 'Warehousing Corporation (1991) 187 ITR 54, wherein the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. ITO (1974) 94 ITR 129 has been affirmed, the special leave petitions are dismissed."

Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Orissa State Warehousing. Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 which has taken somewhat different view, particularly, with regard to the interest income. We find a conflict between decisions on which earlier special leave petitions were dismissed and Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC). Accordingly, this matter may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for directions for placing the matter before a larger Bench for decision.

M.B.A./477/FC Order accordingly.