The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.datamatics Technologies Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.448 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Datamatics Technologies Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.Mr.Atul K Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 5[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-2006, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. “a)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in restoring the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance afresh in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) without appreciating the fact that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, has not reached finality as the Department has contested the matter before the Supreme Court, which is pending for final decision ?law, the Tribunal is justified in restoring the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance afresh in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) without appreciating the fact that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, has not reached finality as the Department has contested the matter before the Supreme Court, which is pending for final decision ? b)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of the AO on law, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of the AO on the issue of disallowance under Section 14A and restoring the same back to the AO for passing a fresh order after necessary re-examination in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) without appreciating the fact that in that case, their Lordships had upheld the contention of the Union of India that Rule 8D is reasonable in its nature ? 2.Since the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra), we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)