Gujarat High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - I vs Banco Aluminium Ltd.....Opponent(S) on 21 January, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, S.H.Vora
O/TAXAP/1414/2007 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1414 of 2007
With
TAX APPEAL NO. 1419 of 2007
With
TAX APPEAL NO. 1421 of 2007
================================================================
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I....Appellant(s)
Versus
BANCO ALUMINIUM LTD.....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BS SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent in Tax Appeal
Nos.1414/2007 and 1419/2007
MR MANISH J. SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent in Tax Appeal
No.1421/2007
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 21/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. All the appeals were admitted together with Tax Appeal No.1485 of 2007 on the following common substantial question of law.
(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) whereby he deleted the addition in the value of closing stock towards excise duty?
Page 1 of 4O/TAXAP/1414/2007 ORDER
2. We have heard Mr. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee in Tax Appeal Nos.1414/2007 and 1419/2007 and Mr. Manish J. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee in Tax Appeal No.1421/2007
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been brought to our notice that the present appeals were admitted together with Tax Appeal No.1485 of 2007. However, subsequently, Tax Appeal No.1485 of 2007 was segregated and the same came to be separately considered by this court vide order dated 24.3.2011. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue as well as the assessee are of agreement on the point that the question, which arises for consideration in the present matter is already covered by the earlier decision of this court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. Reported at (2010) 327 ITR 369 (Guj.) and even this court, while considering Tax Appeal No.1485 of 2007 which was part of the present group, held accordingly and the question was also answered in favour of the assessee.
4. We may record that this court in the abovereferred Tax Appeal No.1485 of 2007, vide its decision dated 24.3.2011, observed thus:
"1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the appellant revenue has challenged order dated 22nd September, 2006 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'D' Camp at Baroda (the Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/1414/2007 ORDER Tribunal) in ITA No.3515/Ahd/2002 for assessment year 1996-97.
2. While admitting the appeal, this Court had, vide order dated 06th December, 2007, formulated the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) whereby he deleted the addition in the value of closing stock towards excise duty?"
3. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate 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."
5. Similar is the question to be considered in the present appeal.
6. Hence, in view of the earlier decision of this court in Page 3 of 4 O/TAXAP/1414/2007 ORDER case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), the question is to be answered in affirmative holding in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 4 of 4