Amtek Auto Limited V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

ITA/589/2006

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by M/s Amtek Auto Limited concerning the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, which were dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The appeals were based on substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the interpretation of book profits under Section 115JA. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of misdirection in law and fact, and the principle of judicial precedent was also questioned. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision and its own previous rulings, upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796354 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd., Jt.C.I.T., Mumbai v. M/s Rolta India Ltd., CIT Chg. V. Steel Strips
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARSHANT BANSAL
• Keywords: Assessment years; Book Profits; Income Tax; Interest Levy; Judicial precedent
• Section: 234B; 234C; 115JA; 115J; 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.589 of 2006 Date of decision: 25.3.2011 M/s Amtek Auto Limited ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ...Respondent ITA No.588 of 2006 Date of decision: 25.3.2011 M/s Amtek Auto Limited ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Parshant Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. This order will dispose of ITA No.589 of 2006 (M/s Amtek Auto Limited vs.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon) and ITA No.588 of 2006 (M/s Amtek Auto Limited vs.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon) as it has been stated that both the appeals involve similar question. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the ITA No.589 of 2006 -2- Act”) against the order dated 9.6.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `D` New Delhi in I.T.A. No.5519/5520 Del of 2003 for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-02 raising following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in view of the judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H) when Hon'ble Supreme Court had already affirmed the contrary view in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 434 (SC)? (ii) Whether the Tribunal mis-directed itself in law as well as on facts in recording its conclusion based on irrelevant findings while dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Upper India Stell Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 123 (P&H), which stood over ruled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd's case? (iii) Whether interest is leviable under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in case of an assessment of a Company, on the basis of book profits under Section 115JA, even when the entire exercise of computing income under section 115J is done at the end ITA No.589 of 2006 -3- of the financial year, and the provisions of Sections 207 to 210 cannot be made applicable until and unless the accounts are audited and balance sheet prepared? (iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the principle of judicial precedent and judicial discipline? 3. The learned counsel for the parties state that the matter is covered against the assessee by judgment of the Supreme Court in Jt.C.I.T., Mumbai v. M/s Rolta India Ltd. Civil Appeal No.135 of 2011, decided on 7.1.2011 which has also been followed by this Court in ITA Nos.176 to 181 of 2003 titled CIT Chg. V. Steel Strips, decided on 4.3.2011. 4. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 25,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) KD Judge "