DCIT, CIRCLE-5 V. PLASTIC HOUSE

TAXAP/419/2006

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-5 as the appellant and Plastic House as the respondent. The Revenue challenged the judgment and order dated 30th June 2005 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, which had remanded the case to the Assessment Officer for fresh consideration. The substantial question of law framed was whether the ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) which deleted the addition of Rs.10,87,399/-, being proportionate interest on interest-free loans given to various sister concerns of the assessee. The Tribunal's remand was based on the agreement of the counsels and the need for a fresh assessment considering previous decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720472 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Torrent Financiers v. CIT, reported in 73 TTJ 624 (Ahd)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RULE SERVED
• Assessee Lawyers: K M PARIKH
• Keywords: Assessment Officer; Income Tax; Interest free loans; Remand; Substantial question of law
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"O/TAXAP/419/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 419 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE ====================================== === 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 or any order made thereunder ? ====================================== === DCIT, CIRCLE-5....Appellant(s) Versus PLASTIC HOUSE....Opponent(s) ====================================== === Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ====================================== === CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI and Page 1 of 4 O/TAXAP/419/2006 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 14/07/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI) By way of filing this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Revenue challenges the judgment and order dated 30th June 2005 by which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench has remanded the case to the Assessment Officer for his fresh consideration. 2 At the time of admission, the following question was framed as a substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) thereby deleting the addition of Rs.10,87,399/-, being proportionate interest on interest free loans given to various sister concerns of the assessee?” 3 Though the respondent is served, he has chosen not to appear before this Court in his personal capacity or has engaged an advocate to represent him. Hence, we have heard Mr K.M. Parikh, learned counsel for the Revenue. While considering the case on hand we find that when the respective counsels of the parties had agreed for remand of the matter to the Assessment Officer for his fresh consideration the Tribunal, under the impugned order, remitted the case to the Assessment Officer. Mr Parikh, learned advocate for the Department submitted that though the matter is remanded, Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/419/2006 JUDGMENT the Tribunal has observed that the Assessment Officer shall decide the matter keeping in view the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Torrent Financiers v. CIT, reported in 73 TTJ 624 (Ahd) and therefore the remand order is required to be modified. 4 We have heard Mr K.M. Parikh, learned advocate for the Revenue and perused the observations made by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the following order would meet with the ends of justice: The Assessment Officer shall decide the case between the parties strictly in accordance with law and consider the legal as well as factual aspects of the matter and shall also consider whether the case of Torrent Financiers v. CIT, reported in 73 TTJ 624 (Ahd) would be applicable to the facts of the present case or not. The Assessment Officer is requested to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. 5 Though Tax Appeal No.420 of 2006 is tagged along with this appeal, it is segregated looking to the question of involved in the present appeal. As the case is merely remanded to the Assessment Officer, we have not answered the question framed in this appeal. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Page 3 of 4 O/TAXAP/419/2006 JUDGMENT In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (A.J.DESAI, J.) Sd/- (A.G.URAIZEE, J.) mohd Page 4 of 4 "