Ellora Time Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1265/2005 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1265 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 ? ================================================================ ELLORA TIME PVT. LTD.....Appellant(s) Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PRANAV G DESAI, 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 assessee has filed this appeal 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, Rajkot (for short, the Tribunal) in I.T.A. No. 453/Rjt/2004 dated 31.03.2005. 2. This court vide order dated 03.07.2006 found that no substantial question of law arose and therefore dismissed the appeal. The appeal was however remanded to this Court by the Apex Court pursuant to order dated 09.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2923 of 2007 filed by the assessee for formulating the following substantial questions of law for consideration; 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has substantially erred in denying deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of rent income, profit on trading activities and profit on sale of calculators without assigning any reasons and disregarding the solitary decision of coordinate Bench?the case the Tribunal has substantially erred in denying deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of rent income, profit on trading activities and profit on sale of calculators without assigning any reasons and disregarding the solitary decision of coordinate Bench? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in interpreting Entry No.22 to Schedule 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of denial of deduction under section 80IA(2) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of electronic devices with multiple memory and scientific functions ?the case, the Tribunal is right in law in interpreting Entry No.22 to Schedule 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of denial of deduction under section 80IA(2) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of electronic devices with multiple memory and scientific functions ? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has substantially erred in the case, the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) at Rs.5,11,961/- by holding that the accumulated depreciation as per the Income-tax Act is not to be given effect for determining accumulated profits and the same is to be computed as per Companies Act ? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has substantially erred in the case, the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) at Rs.5,11,961/- by holding that the accumulated depreciation as per the Income-tax Act is not to be given effect for determining accumulated profits and the same is to be computed as per Companies Act ? 2.Mr. R.K. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal while considering question no. 1 has not given any reasons and instead has observed as under: “... In respect of other income we are inclined to agree with the lower authorities that they are not eligible for deduction under section 80IA.” 2.1Mr. Patel submitted that this Court may remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the said question on merits. He submitted that though questions no. 2 & 3 are decided on merits, the entire matter as a whole may be remanded to the Tribunal as the same are interconnected and therefore the Tribunal may assign reasons while deciding the questions afresh. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. Considering the fact that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for agreeing with the lower authorities and has not recorded any finding of fact so far as question no. 1 reproduced hereinabove is concerned, this matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Since issues no. 2 & 3 reproduced hereinabove are also connected with question no. 1 we think it fit to remand the entire matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the three questions after assigning reasons for the same. 4.In the premises aforesaid, this matter is remanded to the Tribunal, which shall consider the issue afresh in light of the provisions of law and shall render appropriate decision, after considering the contentions raised by both the sides. The Tribunal shall record finding of facts and give reasons while deciding the questions raised before it. The Tribunal shall decide the issue afresh being uninfluenced by the observations made by the Tribunal, CIT(A) as also by this Court. We have not entered into the merits of the matter. Since the matter is remanded we do not answer the questions raised hereinabove. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya (K.J.THAKER, J)