Itta/200/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Vi v. M/S. S.p. Steels

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.200 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-VIHyderabad. ..... Appellant AND M/s. S.P. Steels, Urdu Galli, Pathergatti,Hyderabad. .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderof the learned Tribunal dated 3.01.2006 in relation to theassessment year 1994-1995, on the following suggestedquestions of law: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified inannulling the revisional order passed by CIT underSection 263 of the Income Tax Act, though theassessment to the extent of grant of deduction inrespect of interest income on sundry debtors underSec.80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act iserroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue? Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified inannulling the revisional order on the purported groundthat the said assessment was in consonance witherroneous decisions of the Appellate Tribunal, overlooking that the assessment order from the genesiswas running counter to the pre-existing settled legalposition obtaining by M/s. Cambay Electric SupplyIndustrial Company’s rendered as early in 1987? 2 . We have gone through the impugned judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found onfacts, as follows: “….the interest payments are Rs.20,42,738/- andthe interest receipts are Rs.7,98,944/- and if netinterest has to be excluded, it would result in anegative figure, thus not affecting the computation ofdeduction under Sec.80HH and 80I. The view taken by the Assessing Officer is supportedby the Tribunal and the view of the Tribunal is prior to theview of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Ahmedabadreported in 95 ITD 199. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned counselappearing for the appellant submits that the decision of theSpecial Bench of the Tribunal should have been followed.On facts, if the aforesaid judgment is applied, then there isno variation in the quantum of relief under Sections 80HHand 80I, as the net interest is negative. Therefore, no element of law is involved in the matter. Consequently, we dismissed the appeal. No order asto costs. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 04, 2013MAS __________G.Rohini, J.