Assistant Commnr. of Income Tax Vs. Neo Sack Private Limited - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- haryana panchayati raj act, 1994 section 176 (2): [d.k. jain & aftab alam,jj] election petition for order of re-count held, it is no doubt true that the legislature in its wisdom has not incorporated in clause (b) of section 176 the expression on the holding of such inquiry, as it appears in clause (a), but bearing in mind the importance and the sanctity of the secrecy of a ballot, it cannot be the intention of the legislature that a bald allegation of irregularity in the counting process would ipso facto warrant a re-count. such an interpretation of the provisions would not only tantamount to automatic conversion of a petition under section 176(1) into an order for recounting, it would be destructive of the settled principle of secrecy of poll, as also violative of letter and spirit of section 183 which mandates every officer, agent etc.; who performs duty in connection with the recording or counting of votes, to maintain the secrecy of votes. it has, therefore, to be held that though in an election petition seeking an order under section 176 (4)(b)of the act, it may not be necessary for the court to hold a regular enquiry as postulated under clause (a) of section 176 (4) but the court is obliged to apply its mind to the material facts, disclosed in the petition, on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality are founded, along with some contempraneous evidence, which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. an order for re-count on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction under the provision. section 176 (2): [d.k.jain & aftabalam ,jj] election petition for re-count of votes petitioner alleging recording of wrong result by returning officer - affidavit in support of allegations not filed by petitioner - returning officer not examined though misconduct was alleged against him - petitioner had not availed statutory remedy under rule 69 held, allowing re-count only on ground that margin of difference was only of 4 votes is improper. section 176 (2): [d.k.jain & aftab alam,jj] election petition for re-count -validity was not determined by result emanating from order of re-count, but by nature of averments made in petition and material produced in support thereof held, appeal against order of re-count does not become infructuous merely because respondent has won as result of re-count. section 100 & haryana panchayati raj act, 1994, section 176: [d.k. jain & aftab alam, jj] election petition order for recount - basic requirements held, before in election tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order recount, two basic requirements viz.,(i) the election petition seeking re-count of the balled papers must contain an adequate statement of al the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations the tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied. order1. leave granted.2. by consent, the matter called out and taken up for hearing.3. in our view, an important question of law arises for interpretation of section 80ia of the income tax act [for short, 'the act']. the question, as framed at page 5 of the special leave petition, reads as under:whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned courts below were right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80ia of the act on the amount of entire eligible income without reducing the amount of export incentive from the same?4. the above question has neither been answered by income tax appellate tribunal nor by the high court. we grant liberty to the appellant herein to move the high court and raise the issue specifically, particularly in view of the fact that an important...2/- question of law on interpretation of section 80ia of the act arises for determination.5. in case the high court finds that the answer to the above question needs factual finding(s), it may remit the case to income tax appellate tribunal for disposal on merits the above question only in accordance with law.6. accordingly, civil appeal stands disposed of.7. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. By consent, the matter called out and taken up for hearing.

3. In our view, an important question of law arises for interpretation of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act [for short, 'the Act']. The question, as framed at Page 5 of the special leave petition, reads as under:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Courts below were right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on the amount of entire eligible income without reducing the amount of export incentive from the same?

4. The above question has neither been answered by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal nor by the High Court. We grant liberty to the appellant herein to move the High Court and raise the issue specifically, particularly in view of the fact that an important...2/- question of law on interpretation of Section 80IA of the Act arises for determination.

5. In case the High Court finds that the answer to the above question needs factual finding(s), it may remit the case to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for disposal on merits the above question only in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, civil appeal stands disposed of.

7. No order as to costs.