TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals but subject to the result of the appeals before the Supreme Court, preferred by the revenue on the question of maintainability of such appeals. - ITA No.750 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2012 - D V Shylendra Kumar and B V Pinto, JJ. For Appellant: Sri M Thirumalesh, Adv. For Respondent: M/s A Shankar M Lava, Advs. JUDGEMENT All these appeals under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act ] are by the revenue and relating to the assessment years 1995-96, 1993-94 1992- 93 respectively. 2. The revenue is aggrieved by the common order dated 5.10.2005 [copy at Annexure-A] passed by the Tribunal in the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years and also the cross objection Nos.41/B/03 42/B/03 arising out of the assessment years 1992-93 1995-96 respectively, which had been preferred by the revenue before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal having allowed the appeals of the assessee in part for all the three assessment years and having dismissed the cross objection of the revenue relating to assessment year 1995-96, the revenue is in appeal before us by preferring three appeals for each of the assessment years referred to above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD., [supra] etc. 7. It is also urged that as the assessee had brought in certain discrepancies in valuing the closing stock for the financial year corresponding to assessment year 1994-95, while valuing the stocks for the period relevant for the assessment year in question i.e., assessment year 1995- 96, the assessing officer had set right the discrepancies, but the Tribunal opining that it is not correct has also affected the decision of the Tribunal. 8. One another question which is sought to be urged relating to the appeal arising for the year 1995-96 is that in the matter of computing the benefit that the assessee is entitled under the provisions of section 80HHC of the Act, computation of profits attributable to the export turnover has not been properly done; that it is not fully in consonance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. K RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR [(2007) 295 ITR 228] which decision has in fact been explained and applied by the division Bench of this court in ITA Nos.793 to 796 of 2006 as per Judgment dated 6.6.2012 and therefore the order of the Tribunal warra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals should necessarily be dismissed following the view taken by the earlier division Bench of this court and therefore there is no need to go into other questions etc. 11. However, Sri. Thirumalesh, learned counsel for the appellant revenue has joined in issue on this aspect by pointing out that the correctness of the Judgment of this court in the case of RANKA RANKA [supra] is subject matter of appeals before the Supreme Court; that the appeals when filed were very much maintainable in law; that it was only circular under Instruction No.2/2005 though issued under section 119-A of the Act as was the statutory provision under which such circulars were being issued at that time, but in the language of section 268-A[5] of the Act, that circular also being deemed to be one issued under section 268-A of the Act and that having indicated that while the limit of the value of the appeals being Rs.4 lakhs and less which were not to be preferred by the revenue, but above Rs.4 lakhs for all the years put together, the questions having arisen and also having recurring effect, such appeals were tenable even at that time and even circular No.3/2011 also having left scope for certain typ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Litigation Policy, 2011, so that it can be used for better and productive purpose. 12. One another contention that Sri. Thirumalesh, learned counsel for the revenue has brought to our notice is certain observations made by the Supreme Court while rejecting the special leave petitions preferred by the revenue in respect of the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT CENTRAL-III v. SURYA HERBAL LTD., in SLP [CC] No.13694 of 2011 disposed of on 29.8.2011 taking similar view as that of the division Bench of this court in the case of RANKA RANKA [supra] and also in respect of another Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT NEW DELHI v. JAGDISH MOOLCHANDAN, in SLP [CC] No.20924 of 2011 disposed of on 2.1.2012. 13. It is not necessary for us to examine the effect of these observations made by the Supreme Court, particularly, as it is submitted that the revenue is in appeal before the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court should decide the question one way or the other, that will definitely conclude the matter. 14. Though we find that the order of the Tribunal is not very satisfactory, particularly on the questions as to whether the method of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
