Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Spr Group Holding Pvt Ltd on 22 November, 2010
Bench: Manjula Chellur, L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE
{DATED "mus THE 22"" DAY 0:: NOVEMBER; 2010 . ' Q
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTECE MMJLALA CHE£'LL'E.iF{: > 4-
AND
THE HC>N'8§..E MR. JUSTiCE.*L.-NARAYANA swa;r.1j;* L.%i I %
wcoma TAX APPEAL'V'§*¢'£) ;g-Q3/2CV}'{Je3 ' '
BETWEEN
1.
The Comméssioner of EncomégTé:x;p
CR. Buifding, Queens fR'oa'd... ' "
Bangalore »§'56f?«T:i}§71 3; --.
"Fhe"-F3ep_u<;y Ce?;*:1:f:a_§'ssic5;'mt"czf meme Tax (Asst),
Centfal Ci.rc|£»--3,
CR. Building, ' V
Queens F<'*a_ad-,
Bsmgagore -- swat}: APPELLANTS
. {By Sri". 'fv¥.V»;"'$.eéhgchaié:V,V"§?¥d§Iccate)
-
' Mia 53% Greazbfiojidsngs PvtLtd., No. 34;:-, 5"'«.Ma';'a¢,
- .. fiandhinagagg ':.
RESPONDENT ;ays%,;_ Aéhok A. Kulkarni for Mfs. KR. Prasad. Advocate) iii-
9m} This income Tax Appeei is fited uis 260~A of the income Tex Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 26.G8,2€#O5 passed in ETA ?x|o.*._ SGQIBANGJZOOB. for the Assessment Year 1999-2000, prayin§'._t"e formutate the substantial questions of iew stated therein, sei as5<.:2__e _.__ she orders passed by the ITAT Berzgaiore in .--A'iTA _ No"; _ ' EGQJBANGIZOO3, dated 26.08.2005 confirm the order passed bykhée Commissioner of Income Tax, Kamataka {Centralf}. B:ange'iorfe. ' A This Appeal coming on for hearirtg tijiss.joey;._'M§NJ:{§i§;A_'ii' CHELLUR J, deiivered the fotlowingr _ JUDGMEQT.
Heard the learned cocesei for..rtE3e:..r:ever-we ancl'se aiso the Seemed counsei for the or ' 2; 5! i3 riot if? vdi.$¥3Efi_e t?jei'oertains to the essessmer3i"3ree'rrr Es e_Eso not in dispute that the assessmer2f'aa'r11_e to.}o:e:'f~3r the said year after fiiiing the returns on A'u'T_!oe=.-"Commissioner of inceme Tax ':~<_ernat.;§l{e Qfentyrai, roun.d__...the said assessment erroneous and 'e_reja,:.di'ciaE to'r':he«.rVir:ze_rest of the revenue as the ciosing stock as deciereebyrfire'L:«assessee was accepted by the assessing officer *4sritheut'."'irac1eoI§r9r'g".Vtherein the excise duty. Hence the order of V' * e:«sessr:3en€'came to be set eside with a direction to the assessing __eff§£:.er"reA'reeeesider the question of causation of cfosing stock is VT 'aeeerdsnc:e with the previsions of section 438 of the Act.
3. Against this order of the eppefiate authority dategi 28.03.2003 the assessee approached the income Tax Tribt:--r§*a!:
M No. 569fE3ANGf2093. Foiiowihg the judgement of ti}4i'e.;---co4;:1if"i.§.3o:f*:----:' ~ ma No. 11431999 dated 22.13.2900 en the c_a.se_o'f commeétefiég of.' % hzceme Tax we, we. Fosroo ChemécaEe»_{P~jt}o disposed of the appeai granting reiief-_ ta the~'v:'e3§.»+;g§ge:§, Aggrieved by the said order of the the eteeenfvnzapiéfieal is fiiecf by the revenue, in the ah§s;e_ a-,opeeAlvLihe_1;o"l'EevgEng eobetantiai questions of few were raised alryqfremeoij 11 Whether';_the}ei{cise--_dutyef payable the assess:-éiee goods manufactured, but not re»n1ovedV"arz§iAVe::e§s%:;x4es closing stock should be i 'iheiuded a"'e.of§?erhe§1d charges adding my to the cost ef;""§§jeTe::§'et during the year as per the estabiished fifisfvaccountancy '?
E;\§1ethLer,ATthe exc%ee duty if Enciuded to the stock of iheeseessee wouid reflect the correct income of the V' = . H assessee $0? that year?
4. Oh peruse} of the order of the appelfate tribune! we note A..__:§het except referring to the judgement in Fesrec Chemiceis Pvt. Ltd, the provision of tow which existed as on the date of the