Gujarat High Court
Acit vs Shree on 25 March, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/568/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 568 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
=========================================
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 ?
=========================================
ACIT,
BARODA CIR.-4. - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHREE
BENZOPHEN INDUSTRIES LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR KM
PARIKH for
Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
Date
: 25/03/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the appellant revenue has challenged order dated 04th August, 2006 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (Camp at Baroda) [the Tribunal] in ITA No.1825/Ahd/2002 for assessment year 1997-98.
2. While admitting the appeal, this Court had, vide order dated 28th September, 2007, formulated the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law to exclude the excise duty at the time of valuation of closing stock of finished goods at the end of accounting period?"
3. Heard Mr. K.M. Parikh, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent assessee.
4. Considering the fact that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd., (2010) 327 ITR 369 (Guj.) wherein the Court has held that excise duty is required to be excluded at the time of valuation of the closing stock on finished goods at the end of the accounting period, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
5. Hence, for the reasons stated in the decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), the question is answered accordingly. The Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the excise duty should not be taken into account for valuation of the closing stock. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) ( B.M. Trivedi, J. ) hki Top