Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Karan Kanwal Grover....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/450/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 450 of 2007 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 KARAN KANWAL GROVER....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 11/12/2014ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.06.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in ITA No. 1647/Ahd/2004 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. 2. While admitting this appeal on 30.10.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “[A] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act in respect of employees' contribution of Rs.1,87,858/- to provident fund paid beyond the due date specified in the Provident Fund Act? (B) Whether the interpretation of the Appellate Tribunal does not render the provisions of section 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and the Explanation below section 36(1)(va) totally redundant, merely on the basis of the deletion of the second proviso to Section 43B, which has no nexus with Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x)” 3. Learned advocate for the appellant states that the amount involved in the present case is small one and there is low revenue effect, and therefore, as per CDBT Instruction, the revenue ought not to have come in appeal, and therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed. In that view of the matter, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This appeal is dismissed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) pawan