COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTOR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following two questions of law were framed on 18.05.2006:

(2.) As far as the substantive question i.e. with respect to permissibility of the deduction under Section 80-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), the ITAT's decision for other years, i.e. A.Y. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 were subject matter of other orders made by the ITAT (20.06.2008 for two years, 17.08.2007, 28.03.2005 and 05.09.2008 respectively). Those became the subject matter of appeals before this Court i.e. ITA Nos.1082/2005, 690/2008, 225/2009, 1189/2009 and 251/2010. All those appeals by the Revenue, urging common questions with respect to admissibility of the benefit/deduction under Section 80-1A of the Act, were dismissed; the questions of law were answered against the Revenue.

(3.) The lone question which survives for the decision by this Court is as to the character of the determination made by the ITAT in this case. The order of 04.05.2017 somewhat deals and crystallizes the issue. In short, it is whether the signature appended to the order of one of the members i.e. Shri R.M. Mehta, who retired on 27.12.2003 can be said to bestow it the character of an order. The other member Shri Ram Bahadur signed the order on 01.03.2004. It was in the light of these facts that the Court framed the second question of law in these appeals. The order of 04.05.2017 noticed that the requirement of pronouncing the judgment in open court as it were, did not exist before the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudhir Choudhrie, 2005 278 ITR 490 . As a result of that judgment, Rule 34 was inserted in the ITAT Rules to facilitate that procedure. The Court, in its order of 04.05.2017 noticed and held that since the change of Rule was prospective, there was no illegality to an order on account of signature of Shri Ram Bahadur on 01.03.2004 even though its author had signed it earlier.