Itxa/2170/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Iv Pune v. U.b. Engineering Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2170 OF 2011INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2171 OF 2011INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2172 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Pune ..Appellant. V/s. U.B. Engineering Ltd...Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr. Madhur Agarwal with Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In these appeals by the revenue for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the following common questions of law has been raised for our consideration :- (a)Whether on facts, on circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee that interest accrued is not taxable during the year in spite of the legal position that the interest is accrued during the year by the virtue of the award of the Lucknow Court and only with the pretext that UPSEB has contested the award ?Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee that interest accrued is not taxable during the year in spite of the legal position that the interest is accrued during the year by the virtue of the award of the Lucknow Court and only with the pretext that UPSEB has contested the award ? (b)Whether on facts, on circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee that interest accrued is not taxable during the year in spite of the Apex Court ruling in case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. 225 ITR 476 (SC) that the income has to be taxed once it is accrued or received, the interest income is not only accrued but crystalized due to the order of the Court, the variation in the amount due to the dispute will be taken care for the subsequent year as and when arises. Therefore, the tax liability has accrued during the year ?Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee that interest accrued is not taxable during the year in spite of the Apex Court ruling in case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. 225 ITR 476 (SC) that the income has to be taxed once it is accrued or received, the interest income is not only accrued but crystalized due to the order of the Court, the variation in the amount due to the dispute will be taken care for the subsequent year as and when arises. Therefore, the tax liability has accrued during the year ? (c)Whether on facts, on circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee that interest accrued is not taxable during the year in spite of another Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277 that beyond the legislative intention of the Courts and the lower authorities cannot stretch the interpretation of the statute and in the instant case it amounts to the same, hence the prayer to allow the appeal in favour of the revenue ?Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee that interest accrued is not taxable during the year in spite of another Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277 that beyond the legislative intention of the Courts and the lower authorities cannot stretch the interpretation of the statute and in the instant case it amounts to the same, hence the prayer to allow the appeal in favour of the revenue ? 2.Counsel for the parties states that the basic question raised in these matters is, whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the interest accrued to the respondent-assessee from the UPSEB is not taxable. Counsel for the parties state that so far as this issue is concerned, the same stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the respondent-assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.771 of 2011 rendered on 12[th] February, 2013. For the reasons stated in our order dated 12[th ]February, 2013 in Income Tax Appeal No.771 of 2011, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 2.Counsel for the parties states that the basic question raised in these matters is, whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the interest accrued to the respondent-assessee from the UPSEB is not taxable. Counsel for the parties state that so far as this issue is concerned, the same stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the respondent-assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.771 of 2011 rendered on 12[th] February, 2013. For the reasons stated in our order dated 12[th ]February, 2013 in Income Tax Appeal No.771 of 2011, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 3.Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)