Vishal Tools Industries v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar

ITA No.136 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.136 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2017 Vishal Tools Industries Versus ....Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant.Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CM No.7550-CII of 2011 Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. ITA No.136 of 2011 The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 1999-2000against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench,Amritsar (in short 'the Tribunal') passed in ITA No.153/Asr/2009 dated30.10.2009, claiming following substantial questions of law: - Ravinder Singh2017.02.20 11:05I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document “i.Whether on the true and correct interpretation of section147, the assumption of jurisdiction at the instance ofSuperior Authority is contained within the words“Assessing Officer has reasons to believe”?147, the assumption of jurisdiction at the instance ofSuperior Authority is contained within the words“Assessing Officer has reasons to believe”? ii.Whether on the true and correct interpretation of section254(1), the Tribunal as last fact finding authority canrecord a conclusion of fact, dehors the material hence aperversity and unreasonable findings?254(1), the Tribunal as last fact finding authority canrecord a conclusion of fact, dehors the material hence aperversity and unreasonable findings? iii.Whether on the true and correct interpretation of section 234B the levy of interest is mandatory where there is aconflict of decision and the admitted that liability standspaid? iv.Whether on the true and correct interpretation of section 57(iii) of the claim of expenditure for earning the interest isto be allowed under the head Income From Other Sourceswhile computing the Chargeable Income?” 2.Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee very fairly submittedthat the aforesaid substantial questions of law, as claimed by the assessee,are concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of the assessee itselfin ITA No.120 of 2011 decided on 02.05.2012 where the assessee hadapproached this Court in respect of assessment year 2002-03. However, itwas pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that civil miscellaneousapplication No.13771-CII of 2011 had been filed under Section 260A of the Act claiming additional substantial question of law, which is as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was correct in law in denying the benefit for 'netting of'for interest to the assessee while computing deduction u/s 80HHCof the Act?” 3.Notice of CM No.13771-CII of 2011 was issued on 24.05.2016. No reply to the application has been filed. Learned counsel for therespondent-revenue does not dispute the legal and factual statement madeby learned counsel for the assessee. 4.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, prayer made in theCM is allowed and substantial question of law claimed therein is also takenup for consideration. 5.Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee brought it to our noticethat in the order dated 02.05.2012 passed in ITA No.120 of 2011 in respectRavinder Singh2017.02.20 11:05I attest to the accuracy andof the same assessee, this question had also arisen for consideration by thisauthenticity of this document ITA No.136 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 3.Notice of CM No.13771-CII of 2011 was issued on 24.05.2016. No reply to the application has been filed. Learned counsel for therespondent-revenue does not dispute the legal and factual statement madeby learned counsel for the assessee. 4.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, prayer made in theCM is allowed and substantial question of law claimed therein is also takenup for consideration. 5.Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee brought it to our noticethat in the order dated 02.05.2012 passed in ITA No.120 of 2011 in respectRavinder Singh2017.02.20 11:05I attest to the accuracy andof the same assessee, this question had also arisen for consideration by thisauthenticity of this document ITA No.136 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Court wherein after following the decision of the Apex Court in ACGAssociated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-IV, Mumbai, (2012) 3 SCC 321 relating to netting of interest forcomputation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, case wasremanded to the Assessing Officer for passing fresh order in terms of thesaid judgment of the Apex Court. Accordingly, prayer was made that thematter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer on the issue raised in theadditional substantial question of law to pass order in terms of the aforesaidorder. 6.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of theabove, substantial question of law at numbers (i) to (iv) are adjudicatedagainst the assessee in view of the order passed in ITA No.120 of 2011.However, in view of question No.(v) which has been allowed to be taken upas additional substantial question of law, matter is remanded to theAssessing Officer for passing order in terms of the judgment of the ApexCourt in ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited (supra) after hearingthe appellant in accordance with law. 7.Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE January 23, 2017R.S. (RAMENDRA JAIN)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No