(R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.)
The Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore I & Anr. ____ Petitioner(s)
v.
M/s. Gemini Distilleries _____________________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 16815/2017 [@ SLP (C) No. 1425/2014] ,decided on October 12, 2017
With
Civil Appeal No. 16818/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1428/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16817/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1427/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16816/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1426/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16829/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1440/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16820/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1430/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16819/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1429/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16821/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1431/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16822/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1432/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16825/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1436/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16826/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1437/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16823/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1434/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16824/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1435/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16827/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1438/2014 (IV-A)], Civil Appeal No. 16828/2017 [@ SLP(C) No. 1439/2014 (IV-A)]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The question raised in this batch of Appeals is as to whether the instructions/circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 9.2.2011 will have retrospective operation or not.
3. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, New Delhi v. Suman Dhamija (Civil Appeal Nos. 4919-4920/2015) has held that instructions/circular dated 9.2.11 is not retrospective in nature and they shall not govern cases which have been filed before 2011, and that, the same will govern only such cases which are filed after the issuance of the aforesaid instructions dated 9.2.2011.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon circular dated 10th December, 2015 and specifically relied upon paragraph 10. We are of the considered opinion that the central board of direct taxes cannot issue any circular having retrospective operation.
5. Respectfully following the above decision, we allow the instant Appeals. The impugned order passed by the High Court dated 2.11.2011 in ITA No. 887/2006 is set aside. The matter(s) is/are remitted back to the High Court for re-adjudication on merits and in accordance with law.
6. The Civil Appeals are allowed in the above terms.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1425/2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore I & Anr_____ Petitioner(s)
v.
M/s. Gemini Distilleries _____________________________ Respondent
WITH
SLP(C) No. 1428/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1427/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1426/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1440/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1430/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1429/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1431/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1432/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1436/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1437/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1434/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1435/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1438/2014 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 1439/2014 (IV-A)
Date : 12-10-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Mr. W.A. Quadri, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv.
Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Raghvendra S. Srivatsa, Adv.
Mr. Venkita Subramonium T.R., Adv.
Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR
Mr. R.K. Raghavan, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. Leave granted.
8. The Civil Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
———
