Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1063/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1063 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER =========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I....Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR. M.M. BHATT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 26/11/2014ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER) 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short “the Tribunal”] in ITA No.1361/Ahd/2005, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. 2.The short facts of this case are that the respondent-assessee is a public Limited Company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Caustic Soda, Soda Iye and other chemicals. The assessee had filed its return for the assessment year 2003-04 and declared nil income. However, the Assessing Officer charged interest to the tune of Rs.2,71,968/- and Rs.22,11,682/- respectively. 2.1.Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) vide order dated 21.2.2005 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 30.12.2005 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of the revenue. 3.While admitting this appeal on 06.02.2007, the Court had formulated the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the interest charged u/s.243B & 243C by relying upon its own decision in the case of Vadilal Enterprises covered by Sec. 115J, whereas the present case is covered u/s. 115JB and by virtue of sub Section 5 of the said section, the interest u/s. 243B and 243C is chargeable in this case ?” 4. Learned advocate for the appellant-revenue has invited our attention to the fact that the question of law involved in this appeal is already concluded by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2014 rendered in Tax Appeal No.34 of 2003. 5.We have heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the material on record. As far as the case of Vadilal Enterprises is concerned, it is pointed out by Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate for the appellant that it has attained the finality in Tax Appeal No.34 of 2003 and question of law has been answered relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Rolta India Ltd. reported in (2011) 330 ITR 470(SC) in favour of the revenue. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant-revenue has invited our attention to the fact that the question of law involved in this appeal is already concluded by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2014 rendered in Tax Appeal No.34 of 2003. 5.We have heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the material on record. As far as the case of Vadilal Enterprises is concerned, it is pointed out by Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate for the appellant that it has attained the finality in Tax Appeal No.34 of 2003 and question of law has been answered relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Rolta India Ltd. reported in (2011) 330 ITR 470(SC) in favour of the revenue. 6.Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent does not dispute the factual scenario as emerging in both these matters. 7.Even otherwise, the Tribunal while allowing the appeal has given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the conclusion. The Tribunal has relied various decisions of the High Court and has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 8.Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(supra) and the decision of this Court rendered in Tax Appeal No.34 of 2003 this appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the question posed in this appeal is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The decision of the Tribunal is reversed to that extent. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) pawan