Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Sintex Industries Ltd....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/527/2012 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 527 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI ============================================================ ==== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the 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 ?Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV....Appellant(s) Versus SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MS PAURAMI B SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI12th August 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT(PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) Present Tax Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Revenue challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 13th January 2012 passed in ITA No. 115/Ahd/2009 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {“ITAT” for short}, with the following proposed questions of law:- {A}“Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in not adjudicating the grounds raised by the Revenue against the decision of the CIT [A] by which, CIT [A] has granted part relief of Rs. 16,51,532/= to the assessee against the total disallowance of Rs. 40,05,028/= made u/s. 80IA of the Act after allocating certain expenses ?” {B}“Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the decision of CIT [A] by which A.O has been directed to allocate the interest expenses to Baddi unit on the basis of investments made in units ?” In so far as Question {A} is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that several issues were raised by the Revenue before the ITAT, however, the Tribunal has not considered the same. If that be so, it is always open and in fact, useful for the Revenue to approach the Tribunal in rectification application. It is reported that subsequently, the Revenue has already approached the Tribunal by way of Rectification Application. Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal is not entertained at this stage with respect to the proposed Question {A}. In so far as proposed Question {B} is concerned, it appears from the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT that the ITAT has relied upon its earlier decision dated 17th July 2009 with respect to the very assessee, but, with respect to the earlier assessment year. It is reported that the said judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 13th June 2011 passed in Tax Appeal No. 8 of 2010. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the Tribunal, in so far as proposed Question {B} is concerned. In view of the above, since there is no substance in the present Tax Appeal with respect to Question {B} is concerned, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present Tax Appeal in so far as Question {B} is concerned stands dismissed. As the Revenue has already preferred Rectification Application before the ITAT with respect to Question {A}, the same is also dismissed at this stage. With this, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed. {M.R Shah, J.} {Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash*