Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gandhinagar v. Zirconia Cera Tech Glazes

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 604 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 605 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ======================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGARVersus ZIRCONIA CERA TECH GLAZES ======================================Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 18/06/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0]As common question of law and facts arise and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Ahmedabad but with respect to different Assessment Years, both these Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. [2.0]Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal”) in ITA No.376/Ahd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and ITA No.377/Ahd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 by which the learned Tribunal has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of undervaluation of the sales, on the ground of estimated GP and on the ground of clandestine removal of goods, Department has preferred the present Tax Appeals. [2.2]In Tax Appeal No.604/2018, arising out of ITA No.376/Ahd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the following question of law is proposed; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.88,03,348/- made on ground of undervaluation of sales and Rs.2,08,00,924/- on ground of estimated GP on ground of clandestine removal of goods?” [2.3]In Tax Appeal No.605/2018, arising out of ITA No.377/Ahd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the following question of law is proposed; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.92,30,925/- made on ground of undervaluation of sales and Rs.2,53,46,163/- on ground of estimated GP on ground of clandestine removal of goods?” “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.88,03,348/- made on ground of undervaluation of sales and Rs.2,08,00,924/- on ground of estimated GP on ground of clandestine removal of goods?” [2.3]In Tax Appeal No.605/2018, arising out of ITA No.377/Ahd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the following question of law is proposed; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.92,30,925/- made on ground of undervaluation of sales and Rs.2,53,46,163/- on ground of estimated GP on ground of clandestine removal of goods?” [3.0]Heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. At the outset, it is required to be noted that similar additions were made by the Assessing Officer on the very ground with respect to different Assessment Years, which came to be deleted by the learned Tribunal and against the very common judgment and order but with respect to different Assessment Years by which the learned Tribunal deleted the additions made on the ground of undervaluation of the sales, on the ground of estimated GP and on the ground of clandestine removal of goods, Department preferred Tax Appeal Nos.599/2018 to 601/2018 and by the common judgment and order dated 12/06/2018, Division Bench of this Court having noted and considering the fact that the learned Tribunal ultimately deleted the additions primarily on the ground that by virtue of the judgment of the CESTAT, the excise show-cause notice was adjudicated in favour of the assessee and the CESTAT deleted the additions on excise side, and therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, Division Bench has confirmed the very common judgment and order but with respect to different Assessment years. [4.0]In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the order dated 12/06/2017 in Tax Appeal Nos.599/2018 to 601/2018, present Appeals also deserve to be dismissed as no question of law arises. Hence, both these Appeals are dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) siji