Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Hazira Lng Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 155 of 2012With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 155 of 2012 ==========================================================COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II VersusHAZIRA LNG PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance:MR. VARUN K PATEL, ADVOCATE (5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMARand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 12/10/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR) 1. This Tax Appeal is directed against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2750/Ahd/2009dated 30.09.2011. It is a common order passed by theTribunal namely it was passed ITA No. 2749/Ahd/2009connected with ITA No. 2750/Ahd/2009. 2. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, twoappeals were filed by the Revenue in Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2012 (against the ITA No. 2749/Ahd/2009) and the presentITA i.e. Tax Appeal No. 155 of 2012 (against order passed inITA No. 2750/Ahd/2009). The present Appeal came to beadmitted to consider substantial question of law asformulated in the Appeal Memorandum and recorded in theorder of admission dated 19.07.2012. However, theconnected Appeal which came to be listed on 25.07.2012 i.e.Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2012 was disposed of or dismissed on 25.07.2012 by observing thus : “5.1 On the facts of the present case, the CIT(A) recordeda finding that earning of the assessee from foreignexchange fluctuations was not in connection with itsbusiness activity. The finding was in the realm ofappreciation of facts and material, therefore, is factual innature. Such a finding came to be affirmed by theTribunal, which is a finding of fact of the authority. 6. We are in agreement with the view taken by theTribunal. The findings and conclusions are proper andreasonable and are arrived at by correctly by applyingprinciple of law enunciated in the judicialpronouncements. No substantial question of law arisesfor consideration.” 3. The issue involved in the present Appeal which relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 6,09,97,186/- made bythe Assessing Officer, on account of gain on foreign exchangefluctuation, is similar and identical to the issue identical to the issue involved in Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2012 which has been answered in favour of assessee and against theRevenue, as noticed hereinabove. 4.In that view of the matter, the substantial question oflaw formulated in this Appeal is answered against theRevenue and in favour of Assessee in the light of the findingrecorded in Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2012. 5.Consequently, the substantial question of law in this Appeal is answered against the Revenue. Present Tax Appealdisposed of accordingly. 6.Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 does not survive forconsideration. Accordingly, it stands rejected. (ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) AMAR SINGH (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)