COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GUJARAT HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1010/2008HC GujaratGJHC24025416200821 December 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tulsyan Nec Ltd. reported in (2011) 330 ITR 226 (SC). The learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision. Applying the ratio of the Tulsyan Nec Ltd. case, the Court found the issue to be against the Revenue. Consequently, the Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad challenging the order dated 06.07.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.3360/Ahd/2003 for the assessment year 2001-2002. The appeal concerns the charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after allowing credit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). The ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The Revenue's appeal is based on a substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to charge interest under Section 234B after allowing credit of MAT? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, it notes that the ITAT considered its own earlier order in the assessee's case for a prior assessment year which had attained finality. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT was not right in confirming the CIT(A)'s order directing the Assessing Officer to charge interest under Section 234B after allowing credit of MAT. The Revenue's appeal is predicated on the substantial question of law framed above.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O/TAXAP/1010/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1010 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI ============================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II....Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD.....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI Date : 21/12/2013

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)

1.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned O/TAXAP/1010/2008 JUDGMENT judgment and order dated 06.07.2007 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) in ITA No.3360/Ahd/2003 for the assessment year 2001-2002, the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming order passed by the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to charge interest u/s. 234B after allowing credit of MAT?”

2.

Heard Ms Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee. The only issue involved in the present appeal at the instance of the Revenue is in respect of levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after allowing the credit of MAT.

3.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned ITAT has considered the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case but with respect to earlier assessment order which had attained the finality.

3.1.

Even otherwise, now, the aforesaid issue/question is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tulsyan Nec Ltd. reported in (2011) 330 ITR 226 (SC). It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that issue raised in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsyan Nec Ltd. (supra).

4.

Applying the ratio and the law laid down by the Hon'ble O/TAXAP/1010/2008 JUDGMENT Supreme Court in the case of Tulsyan Nec Ltd. (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the issue/question raised in the present Tax Appeal is held against the revenue. Consequently, present Tax Appeal is dismissed. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (R.D.KOTHARI, J.) Jani

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →