COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS

TAXAP/517/2011 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 517 of 2011 With TAX APPEAL No. 518 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 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-I - Appellant(s) Versus SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 14/06/2012 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the

TAXAP/517/2011 2/2 JUDGMENT Revenue, in these Tax Appeals. The Revenue proposed the following question: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.6,22,957/-?” 2. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the interest amount claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) has set aside the finding of the Assessing Officer and has held that the interest claimed by the assessee should not have been disallowed. The finding recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is extracted below:- “7. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that there a clear-cut finding by the CIT(A) that the amount outstanding in the account of M/s. Badopadiya Textile is outstanding on account of sales made in earlier year and there is (sic) amount has been brought forward from the financial year 1994-95. We further find that this (sic) findings of CIT(A) has not been controverted by DR during the course of hearing. We are of the view that once amount outstanding on account of sales made in earlier year, no disallowance on account of interest expenditure on borrowed basis can be made on his account. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue's issue. Similarly, (sic) are the facts in ITA No.2105-2106/Ahd/2008, hence taking a consistent view we dismiss this common issue in Revenue's appeals.” 3. In our considered opinion, the order passed by the CIT(A) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal do not suffer from any error. These Tax Appeals are concluded on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Both these Tax Appeals are accordingly dismissed. (V.M. SAHAI, J.) (N.V. ANJARIA, J.) (SN DEVU PPS)