Itta/11/2013 Of Commissioner Of Incometax-Ii v. M/S. Sab Nife Power System Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.11 of 2013 DATE: 18.06.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Sab Nife Power System Ltd.,Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.11 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal in relation to the assessment year 2002-03 is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: “A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the profits considered for deduction under Section 80-IA and 80-IB of theAct could also be included in gross profit for the purpose ofcomputation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, inspite of the mandate given out in Section 801A-(9) of the Act” B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that income accrued tothe assessee on account of foreign exchange fluctuations could beconsidered as income derived from exports for the purposes of grantof deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act? C) (i) Whether the appellate Tribunal is justified in notholding that interest income, which partakes thecharacter of income from other sources, cannot beconsidered for the purposes of grant of deduction in terms of Section 80IA of the Act? (ii) In any event without prejudice to the above, whetherthe appellate Tribunal is justified in not holding thatit is only the net interest after setoff of out-go that could be considered for grant of such deduction?” We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. It is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads as follows: “On identical issue for the assessment year 2002-03 inITA.No.1269/Hyd/2005 for assessment year 2002-03, we haveallowed the grounds raised by the assessee vide para 8 above. Forthe same reasons we allow these grounds too. Grounds 4 and 4.1 to 4.3 pertain to reduction of the amount ofdeduction allowed in terms of sub-section (9) of Section 80IA andsub-section (13) of Section 80IB from the eligible profits for thepurpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC. Identicalissue had come up for consideration before us for the assessmentyear 2002-03 in ITA No.1269/Hyd/05 in assessee’s own case andvide para 7 of this order we have allowed the grounds raised by theassessee.” In this appeal, following the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal onwhich reliance was placed, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannotchallenge the impugned order without challenging the earlier orders. It is truethat principle of resjudicata does not apply, but the question of estoppelcertainly applies in a matter of this nature. Therefore, we do not think that thisappeal should be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Nocosts. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ G. ROHINI, J