Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rajoo Engineers Ltd

O/TAXAP/1309/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1309 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA ================================================================ 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 Versus RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD ================================================================ Appearance: MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE for the RespondentMRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Date : 30/11/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1]Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the imgpuned judgment and order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the ITAT”) in ITA No.1290/Rjt/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02, by which the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue, the revenue has preferred the present appeal to consider the following substantial question of law. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without excluding the deductions u/s 80I and 80G of the Act?” [2]Heard Pranav G. Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – revenue and Mr.S. N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT. [3]At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such, the learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue on the ground that there would be a low tax effect. The learned ITAT has relied upon the Circular of the Board dated 24.10.2005. However, while observing that the appeal is required to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect, the learned ITAT has also considered the case on merits, which the learned ITAT could not have done so. [4]It is not in dispute that the amount involved / disputed in the appeal was Rs.1,44,190/- and, therefore, as per the Circular of the Board dated 24.10.2005, the appeal preferred by the revenue was not required to be entertained and/or the revenue ought not to have preferred the appeal, unless it was found that any substantial question of law arises and/or the same would have effect in subsequent Assessment Year. It is not the case on behalf of the revenue. Under the circumstances, the learned ITAT has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. As observed hereinabove, the ITAT ought not to have gone into merits of the case. [5]Under the circumstances, keeping the question of law, which is framed in the present appeal open and without expressing anything on merits with respect to the same, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to cost. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)