Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sangrur Vanaspati Mills. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills. Ltd. I.T.A. No.40 of 2003 Date of decision: 23.9.2010 -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counselfor the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocatefor the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order dated 6.9.2002 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.529/Chandi/93 for theassessment year 1984-85 proposing to raise following substantialquestion of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in admitting theassessee’s application filed u/s 158A of the I.T. Act?” 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that thequestion of law should have been whether Section 158A of the Act was applicable when same issue was pending before thisCourt for a different year. 3.Brief facts for decision of this appeal may be noticed.The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80 HH of the Actby computing deduction without reducing permissible deductionunder Section 32A of the Act. The Assessing Officer held thatdeduction under Section 80HH of the Act could be allowed onlyafter excluding deduction permissible under Section 32A of theAct. However, the CIT(A) reversed the said view. The Tribunal,however, restored the view of the Assessing Officer. Theassessee made an application under Section 158A of the Act tokeep the issue pending till decision by this Court on a question oflaw referred to this Court for the previous year. On that account,the issue was kept pending. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that sincethe issue has now been decided in favour of the revenue by thisCourt and it has been held that deduction under Section 80 HH ofthe Act is to be allowed after deduction under Section 32A of theAct, the Tribunal is bound to follow the said decision. The appealhas, thus, become infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE