Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rahul Cal Chem Pvt Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1638/2005 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1638 of 2005 with TAX APPEAL NO. 1644 of 2005TO TAX APPEAL NO. 1646 of 2005with TAX APPEAL NO. 1705 of 2005 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....Appellant(s)VersusVersus RAHUL CAL CHEM PVT LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR BS SOPARKAR FOR MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MS MONICA GOHIL FOR MR SM GOHIL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 04/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. The Revenue has filed these appeals u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the ITAT) in I.T.A. No.1843/Ahd/2004 dated 02.03.2005, No. 1520/Ahd/2004, dated 17.03.2005, No.1521/Ahd/2004 dated 17.03.2005, No. 1522/Ahd/2004 dated 17.03.2005 and No. 367/Ahd/2004 dated 12.04.2005. 2. While admitting these appeals on 23.08.2006, the following substantial question of law came to be formulated; “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that if notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the period of one year after the return was filed in response to notice u/s 148, the assessment was barred by limitation?” 3.Mr. Nitin Mehta learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the question raised in the present appeals is squarely governed by the decision of this Court rendered in Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2006 on 27.11.2014. wherein identical issue was raised and this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. Considering the fact that similar issue was involved in Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2006 which has already been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, these matters are also remanded to the Tribunal, which shall consider the issue afresh in light of the said decision and the provisions of law and shall render decision, after considering the contentions raised by both the sides. The Tribunal shall decide the issue afresh being uninfluenced by the observations made by the Tribunal in its earlier order as also by this Court. We have not entered into the merits of the matter. With the above observations, the orders impugned are quashed and set aside. As the matters are remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, the questions are not answered. Appeals are allowed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya (K.J.THAKER, J)