Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. Rashmikaben K Thakkar....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/517/2014 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 517 of 2014 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 - II....Appellant(s) Versus RASHMIKABEN K THAKKAR....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TEJ SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 17/11/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’, Ahmedabad in ITA No.9/Ahd/2013 for AY 2009-10. 2.The facts of the present case are that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 31.7.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 5,02,130/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act on 23.7.2010. The case was selected manually for scrutiny. A notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act dated 28.9.2010 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 9.11.2011 with a request to furnish necessary details. Since, there is change in incumbent, the AO against issued another notice u/s. 142(1) on 13.6.2011. Thereafter, after considering all the documents, the assessment order came to be passed. Against the said assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which came to be dismissed. Against the order of CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which came to be allowed, against which, the present Tax Appeal by the Appellant-Revenue. 3.Heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and considered the submissions. While considering the case, the Tribunal in para-3 has taken into consideration the facts and while concluding in para-5 has considered the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of C.S. Gosalla v. ITO. In para-5, the Tribunal has observed as under: “5. We have heard the rival the Appellant-Revenue. 3.Heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and considered the submissions. While considering the case, the Tribunal in para-3 has taken into consideration the facts and while concluding in para-5 has considered the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of C.S. Gosalla v. ITO. In para-5, the Tribunal has observed as under: “5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the only issue for our determination is whether the amount received by the assessee on redemption of 100 Deep Discount Bonds of SSNL to be taxed as interest income or long term capital gain. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of C.S.Gosalla vs. ITO (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has held that these Deep Discount Bonds are capital assets, hence, profit arising on redemption thereof is to be treated as capital gain. After considering of the totality of the facts and the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we do not find any reason to differ from the opinion expressed by the coordinate Bench in the case of C.S> Gosalla v. ITO (supra), this ground of the assessee is allowed. The AO is directed to treat the redemption value less issue price as capital gain tax O/TAXAP/517/2014 JUDGMENT accordingly.” 4.In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal and no other view is possible other then the one taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not giving any elaborating reasons. No substantial question of law is made out and the appeal being devoid of any merit, requires to be dismissed. Hence, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora (K.J.THAKER, J)