Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara 4 v. Panchmahal Steel Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 688 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be 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 ?4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? =============================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 4 Versus PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD ===============================================Appearance:MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 19/06/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgement and order dated 5.9.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad passed in ITA No.206/Ahd/2015 for A.Y.2005-06, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT (A) in allowing the Assessee benefit of carry forward and set off all unabsorded depreciation for the A.Ys. 1995-96 and 1996-97 beyond the period of eight assessment years in contravention of applicable provisions being Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1[st] April, 1997. The Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed questions of law: “2(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the cse, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee benefit of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the A.Ys. 1995-96 & 1996-97 beyond the period of eight assessment years in contravention of applicable provisions being section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1[st] April, 1997? (b)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law?” 2.Heard Mr. Varun Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue. So far as the proposed question No.1 is concerned, the same is covered against the Revenue in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) and the subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Itegra Engineering India Ltd. rendered in Tax Appeal No.380/2013. Under the circumstances, so far as the proposed question of law No. 2(a) is concerned, the said issue is now not res integra in view of the binding decision of Division Bench of this Court. 3.Now so far as the proposed question 2 (b) is concerned, namely whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, as question 2(a) is answered against the Revenue in the said case, the said question would become academic and therefore, we do not decide the same. 4.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) NAIR SMITA V. (A.Y. KOGJE, J)