M/S Amtek Auto Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon

ITA No.589 of 2006Date of decision: 25.3.2011 M/s Amtek Auto Limited ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ...Respondent M/s Amtek Auto Limited ITA No.588 of 2006Date of decision: 25.3.2011 ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Parshant Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.Ms.Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.This order will dispose of ITA No.589 of 2006 (M/s AmtekAuto Limited vs.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon) and ITANo.588 of 2006 (M/s Amtek Auto Limited vs.The Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Gurgaon) as it has been stated that both the appealsinvolve similar question. 2.These appeals have been preferred by the assesseeunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 9.6.2006 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Delhi Bench `D` New Delhi in I.T.A. No.5519/5520 Del of2003 for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-02 raisingfollowing substantial questions of law:- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was legally correct in dismissing theappeal of the assessee in view of the judgment renderedin the case of CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co.Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H) when Hon'ble SupremeCourt had already affirmed the contrary view in the caseof Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd.(2006) 284 ITR 434 (SC)?case, the Tribunal was legally correct in dismissing theappeal of the assessee in view of the judgment renderedin the case of CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co.Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H) when Hon'ble SupremeCourt had already affirmed the contrary view in the caseof Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd.(2006) 284 ITR 434 (SC)? (ii)Whether the Tribunal mis-directed itself in law as well ason facts in recording its conclusion based on irrelevantfindings while dismissing the appeal of the appellantherein in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional HighCourt in the case of CIT vs. Upper India Stell Mfg. &Engg. Co. Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H), which stoodover ruled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Courtin Kwality Biscuits Ltd's case?on facts in recording its conclusion based on irrelevantfindings while dismissing the appeal of the appellantherein in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional HighCourt in the case of CIT vs. Upper India Stell Mfg. &Engg. Co. Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H), which stoodover ruled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Courtin Kwality Biscuits Ltd's case? (iii)Whether interest is leviable under Sections 234B and234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in case of anassessment of a Company, on the basis of book profitsunder Section 115JA, even when the entire exercise ofcomputing income under section 115J is done at the end 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in case of anassessment of a Company, on the basis of book profitsunder Section 115JA, even when the entire exercise ofcomputing income under section 115J is done at the end of the financial year, and the provisions of Sections 207 to210 cannot be made applicable until and unless theaccounts are audited and balance sheet prepared? (iv)Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal iscontrary to the principle of judicial precedent and judicialdiscipline?contrary to the principle of judicial precedent and judicialdiscipline? 3.The learned counsel for the parties state that the matter iscovered against the assessee by judgment of the Supreme Court inJt.C.I.T., Mumbai v. M/s Rolta India Ltd. Civil Appeal No.135 of2011, decided on 7.1.2011 which has also been followed by thisCourt in ITA Nos.176 to 181 of 2003 titled CIT Chg. V. Steel Strips,decided on 4.3.2011. 4.Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 25,2011KD (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge