Madhya Pradesh High Court
Cit vs K.D. Wires (P) Ltd. on 17 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: [2006]150TAXMAN244(MP)
ORDER
1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue (Commissioner of Income-Tax) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 1-6-1999 passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 811 /IND /95. This appeal was admitted for final hearing by this court on 11 -9-2000 by passing the final order:
" 11-9-2000 Shri R.L. Jain, LC for the appellant.
Heard.
Substantial question of Law framed.
Admit.
Issue notice to the Respondent, PF within a week. List for final hearing in due course."
2. Perusal of the afore-quoted order sheet coupled with the memo of appeal indicates that the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in holding that the deduction under section 80I is allowable on the gross total income without reducing therefrom the deduction under section 80HH of the Act even though the decision of the M.P. High Court in the case of M/s. J.P. Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. (supra) has not been accepted by the department and SLP filed against it before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending."
3. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned Sr. Counsel with Ku. Veena Mandlik for appellant and Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri D. Chhabra for respondent.
4. At the out set, learned counsel for appellant brought to our notice that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered against the revenue by a decision referred in the question itself i.e. J.P. Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 123 (MP). It is not in dispute that this judgment was later upheld by the Supreme Court when the S.L.P. filed by appellant i.e. Commissioner of Income-Tax was also dismissed in limine resulting in upholding the order passed by this court in the aforementioned case. ,
5. The question in substance involved was in regard to sections 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act. It is the question of interpretation as to how these two sections need to be interpreted for the purpose of granting benefit to the assessee was examined by this court and accordingly it was interpreted in favour of the assessee.
6. Once the issue is settled by the decision of this court and later upheld by the Supreme Court the question seems to be a question of law much less a substantial question of law. The controversy in other words comes to an end once it is decided by this court and upheld by the Supreme Court.
7. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion which alone is necessary without taking note of the facts involved in this appeal in detail, we dismiss this appeal on the basis of the reasoning contained in J.P, Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. case (supra).