2006 (9) TMI 151 - HC - Income Tax

Court Rules ITAT's Rs. 10,000 Fee Inconsistent with Law; Orders Refund and Bank Guarantee Return.

The HC ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the ITAT's demand for a Rs. 10,000 court fee was inconsistent with section 253(6)(d) of the ... Deficit court fee payable on the appeals - 'income' includes loss - Whether loss cases would be covered by section 253(6)(d) and as such appeal fees is payable only Rs. 500 for each appeal? - HELD THAT:- Unfortunately, the Tribunal, without even looking into the basic requirement of court fee, has chosen to blindly accept the objection of the Registrar. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is justified in complaining that the order of the Tribunal runs counter to section 253(6)(d) of the Act. We accept the submission of the appellant-assessee. We deem it proper to hold that the appellant is liable to pay court fee at the rate of Rs. 500 for each one of the appeals for the purpose of maintaining appeals before the Tribunal. The appellant has made over the court fee of Rs. 12,000. Since the appellant is only liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500 as court fee, the Registrar is directed to refund the balance sum of Rs. 9,500 to the appellant within one month from today. On failure, the appellant is entitled for interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum for delayed payment from the date of delay till the date of payment. We are told that the Tribunal has now chosen to condone the delay and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Commissioner. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal is directed to return the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant if not already returned in the light of disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal itself. In the result, we accept this appeal. Questions of law Nos. (1) and (2) are not answered. In the light of our discussion, question of law No. (3) is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee. Ordered accordingly. Issues:1. Appeal against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding court fee payment.2. Interpretation of section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Determination of court fee payable based on the assessed income.Issue 1: Appeal against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding court fee payment:The appellant, M/s. Rajakamal Polymers Private Limited, challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, regarding the payment of court fee for their appeals. The Tribunal had demanded a court fee of Rs. 10,000 for each appeal due to the quantum involved as per the assessing authority's order. The appellant objected to this amount, leading to the matter being brought before the High Court. The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision to demand Rs. 10,000 as court fee was not in line with the provisions of section 253(6)(d) of the Income-tax Act. The High Court ruled that the appellant was only liable to pay a court fee of Rs. 500 for each appeal, resulting in a refund of the excess amount paid by the appellant.Issue 2: Interpretation of section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The High Court analyzed section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, which outlines the fees payable for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal based on the assessed income. The court fee payable is determined by different clauses of this section depending on the total income computed by the Assessing Officer. The High Court emphasized that the scale of fees mentioned in the Act is directly linked to the assessment done by the assessing authority and the money payable by the assessee. By interpreting the provisions of section 253(6), the High Court clarified that the court fee payable is determined by the specific circumstances of each case and the amount involved in the appeal.Issue 3: Determination of court fee payable based on the assessed income:In this case, the Appellate Commissioner had rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation, falling under clause (d) of section 253(6) of the Act. The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision to demand Rs. 10,000 as court fee was incorrect, as the appeal should have been subject to a court fee of Rs. 500 under section 253(6)(d). The High Court found that the Tribunal had erred in blindly accepting the Registrar's objection without considering the basic requirement of court fee. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar to refund the excess amount paid by the appellant and also ordered the return of the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant in light of the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay and remand the matter back to the Appellate Commissioner.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the appeal against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order, the interpretation of relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, and the determination of the court fee payable based on the assessed income, ultimately resulting in a favorable decision for the appellant.