Alliance Fibres Limited, Surat V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.1(1)(1), Surat

ITA 128/SRT/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2056 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2022
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 139; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.128/SRT/2021 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Years: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alliance Fibres Limited, Block No. 203, Plot 1,2,3, Mota Borasara, Taluko: Mangrol, Surat-394110. Vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA7904F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 26/04/2022 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034339123(1) dated 20.07.2021, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer (Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru) in making adjustment u/s 143(1) although the same adjustment does not fall within the ambit of section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.7,68,50,405/- on account of disallowance of carry forward of business loss. Page | 2 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.24,39,871/- on account of disallowance of employees contribution to P.F and ESIC of Rs.24,39,871/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. 4. It is therefore prayed that addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. Assessee craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground no.1, therefore we dismiss Ground no.1 raised by assessee, as not pressed. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is general in nature therefore does not require adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. The assessing officer, while processing the return of income under section 143(1) observed that assessee has filed return of income claiming business loss of Rs.10,25,28,581/- on 01/11/2018. The return of income was processed by CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) and the claim of carry forward loss of Rs.10,25,28,581/- was restricted to depreciation loss of Rs.2,56,78,176/-only. The assessing officer noted that assessee has filed return of income late therefore as per the provisions of section 80 of the Income Tax Act, no loss is allowed to be carry forward and set-off, if the return of income is not filed as per the provision of 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Since, the return was filed late and was not as per the provisions of time limit provided in section 139 (1) of the Act, therefore assessing officer noted that the claim of loss should not be allowed. Hence, the business loss of Rs.7,68,50,405/- (Rs.10,25,28,581- Rs.2,56,78,176) was not allowed by assessing officer. 5. On appeal, Learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Shri Mehul Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleaded before the Bench that there was delay of 2 minutes only due to the reason that Government server was working slow and did not respond on time. The Learned Counsel pointed out that assessee was trying to upload the Return of Income since 8.00 PM on 31.10.2018, but due to heavy rush on the website of the Income tax Page | 3 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. Department, the Acknowledgment of Return was generated two minutes past 12.00, that is at 12.02 AM and therefore the date on the Acknowledgment of Return was 01.11.2018. There is minor delay and the confirmation of submission of IT Return through E-mail was received around 12.02 PM, instead of exact 12.00(midnight). The ld Counsel pointed out that Government Server was facing a lot of issues on the due date of filling Return of Income. Even if it is presumed that the Acknowledgment of Return of Income was generated after 12.00 AM, adverse inference should not be drawn for the slight delay (two minute). To bolster his arguments, ld Counsel relied on many precedents on the issue under consideration. 7. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue took us through the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that due date for filling original return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 was upto 30.09.2018. However, the due date for filling original return of income was extended by CBDT upto 31.10.2018, even then, in the extended due date, the assessee could not file his original return of income on time. The Ld. DR, therefore pointed out that since original return of income has not been filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, assessee is not entitled to carry forward the losses. Therefore, ld DR has strongly relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We have perused case file as well as paper books furnished by assessee. We find that one key issue arises for our apt adjudication in the instant lis, which is, whether two minute delay in filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act may be condoned, (especially when server of the Department was working slow) and assessee may be allowed to carry forward the business loss in subsequent year for set off. We note that disallowance has been made by the assessing officer as the return of income has been filed late by two minutes. We note that assessee company filed its return of income for assessment year 2018-19 in night on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming business loss of Rs.10,25,28,581/-. The assessing officer allowed depreciation loss of Rs.2,56,78,176/-. However, disallowed business loss to the tune of Page | 4 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. Rs.7,68,50,405/- (Rs.10,25,28,581 - Rs.2,56,78,176). We note that acknowledgement of Return was generated two minutes late, that is, at 12:02 PM instead of at 12.00AM, and therefore the date on the acknowledgment of Return of income was 01.11.2018. It is to be noted that Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CA was furnished electronically on 31.10.2018, that is, within the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. Hence there was no intention of the assessee to violate the provision of the Act. The assessee was trying to upload the Return of income since 8.00 PM on 31.10.2018 but due to some technical error from the server of Government of India, the same could not be uploaded. It seems that the same was uploaded around 12:00 AM after many attempts, but the confirmation of submission of Income Tax Return through E-mail was received around 12.02 AM. Therefore, we are of the view that such a minor delay was beyond the control of the assessee and therefore the genuine assessee should not be penalized especially when the assessee filed Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CA electronically on 31.10.2018 on time. The assessee was trying his level best to file before 12.00PM, however, due to technical mistake of the server, the Income Tax Return acknowledgement was received around 12.02 AM, that is, two minute late. Thus, the sequence of events narrated above clearly show that there was no intention of the assessee to violate the provisions of the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income before 12.00PM, on time, and if the server (Website of Income Tax Department) is not responding on time, the assessee cannot control it. It is against the spirit of legal doctrine - lex non cogit ad impassibilia means law does not compel a person to do impossible act. 9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to quote the golden words of Justice, Lord Bhagwati, in the case of Pannalal Binjraj, [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC)[21-12-1956], he said that: “......It may also be remembered that this power is vested not in minor officials but in top-ranking authorities like the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Central Board of Revenue who act on the information supplied to them by the Income-tax Officers concerned. This power is discretionary and not necessarily discriminatory and abuse of power cannot be easily assumed where the discretion is vested in such high officials, (vide Matajog Dobey v. H.S. Bhari [1955] 2 SCR 925. 932). There is moreover a presumption that public officials will discharge Page | 5 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. their duties honestly and in accordance with the rules of law: (vide People of the State of New York v. John E. Van De Carr, etc. [1905] 199 U.S. 552; 50 L.Ed. 305). It has also been observed by this Court in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti & Another [1956] 29 ITR 349 with reference to the possibility of discrimination between assessees in the matter of the reference of their cases to the Income-tax Investigation Commission that "It is to be presumed, unless the contrary were shown, that the administration of a particular law would be done 'not with an evil eye and unequal hand' and the selection made by the Government of the cases of persons to be referred for investigation by the Commission would not be discriminatory....." 10. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that just because the delay of two minute has happened in filing the Income tax Return because of procedural defects committed by the server machine (website of Income Tax Department), which is administering the tax law under section 139(1) of the Act, should not make the assessee in disadvantage position, so that assessee cannot carry forward the legitimate losses for set off in subsequent years. Therefore, in view of the above discussion on factual aspects, we are of the view that delay of two minute (slight delay) should be condoned in the interest of justice and fair play, accordingly, we condone the delay and direct the assessing officer to allow carry forward and set- off of losses of Rs.7,68,50,405/-. 11. In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 12. Now, coming to ground no.3 raised by the assessee, which relates to late payment of PF and ESIC. We note that in similar cases, this Tribunal is remitted the issue back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to wait till the decision of the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat]. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rekha R. Shukla in ITA No.147 & 234/SRT/2021 for AYs. 2018-19 to 2019-20, order dated 31.03.2022 has remitted the similar issue back to the file of ld CIT(A), thus, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rekha R. Shukla (supra) wherein it was held as follows: Page | 6 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. “12. Therefore, as per the above, judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), the claim of the assessee is not allowable. 13. We note that Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Salasar Laminates Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (Tax Appeal No. 1186 of 2018), has granted liberty to the assessee that if the Supreme Court reverse the judgment in the case of GSRTC, it would be open for the assessee to revive the appeal. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “This Appeal is filed by the assessee to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {“Tribunal” for short} dated 22nd March 2018. The issue pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14 and the sole question raised by the assessee in this appeal concerns deductibility of a sum of Rs.20,34,916/- which was the employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund, ESI, etc. It appears that the assessee did deposit such amount of contribution towards PF & ESIC accounts, however, missed the deadline prescribed in the statutes for such purpose. On account of this, the Revenue did not permit deduction of such sum from the income of the assessee. Such disallowance thereupon became the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat]. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the issue on hands is squarely covered by this Court in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [Supra]. He, however, submitted that the appeal is pending against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court and SLP has been granted. The amount involved is not very large and it would be extremely expensive for the assessee to carry this in appeal before the Supreme Court. He, therefore, suggested that the benefit of this judgment of the Supreme Court may be made available to the assessee; as and when rendered and in case, the judgment of the High Court is reversed. Two clear ways are possible to enable the appellant assessee to get benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in case the High Court judgment is reversed. One is to dismiss this appeal and allow the assessee to approach the Supreme Court; like some other assesses would have. The other way is to make some arrangement under which without filing the appeal, the assessee would also be able to claim the benefit of the judgment. Looking to the smallness of the disputed amount, we adopt the latter option by providing as under: This appeal at this stage is dismissed. However, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgment in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC [Supra], it would be open for the appellant to revive this appeal by filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgment.” 14. Since against the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation(supra), the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the Hon`ble Supreme Court is pending, hence following the judgment of Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Salasar Laminates Ltd (supra) all these appeals is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the issue as per the outcome of the decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court. Page | 7 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. 15. We also note that on identical facts, similar issues have been remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Surat, in the case of Puja Chemicals in ITA No.161 & 162/SRT/2021. The findings of the Tribunal is as follows: “5.We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the issue involved in these four appeals are covered against the assessee, as the assessee has not deposited Employees Provident Fund (EPF) with the prescribed authority within stipulated time, therefore as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Company (supra), the issue had already been decided by the Hon'ble Court against the assessee. However, we note that jurisdiction ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Unicorn Remedies Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 3058/AHD/2014 for AY.2011- 12 and 2599/AHD/2016 for AY.2012-13, order dated 30.01.2019 wherein the similar issue has been remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter after taking into account the outcome of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The findings of the Tribunal are reproduced below: “14. This issue is already against the appellant for late deposit of Employees Provident Fund with the authority by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund on or before due date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va), assessee shall not be entitled to deduction of such amount though he deposits same before due date prescribed under section 43B. i.e., prior to filing of return under section 139(1) - Held, yes - Assessee State transport corporation collected a sum being provident fund contribution from its employees - However, it had deposited lesser sum in provident fund account -Assessing Officer disallowed same under section 43B - However, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance on ground that employees contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since assessee had not deposited said contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer was just and proper - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue] 15. In the meanwhile, it is noticed that on this issue appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and recently Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1186 of 2018 has held that two clear ways are possible to enable the appellant-assessee to get benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in case the High Court Judgment is reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and relevant part of the said order of the High Court is reproduced: "This Appeal is filed by the assessee to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {"Tribunal" for short} dated 22nd March 2018. The issue pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14 and the sole question raised by the assessee in this appeal concerns deductibility of a sum of Rs.20,34,916/- which was the employees' contribution towards Provident Fund, ESI, etc. It appears that the assessee did deposit such amount of contribution towards PF & ESIC Page | 8 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. accounts, however, missed the deadline prescribed in the statutes for such purpose. On account of this, the Revenue C/TAXAP/1186/2018 ORDER did not permit deduction of such sum from the income of the assessee. Such disallowance thereupon became the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366ITR 170 [Gujarat]. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the issue on hands is squarely covered by this Court in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [Supra]. He, however, submitted that the appeal is pending against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court and SLP has been granted. The amount involved is not very large and it would be extremely expensive for the assessee to carry this in appeal before the Supreme Court. He, therefore, suggested that the benefit of this judgment of the Supreme Court may be made available to the assessee; as and when rendered and in case, the judgment of the High Court is reversed. Two clear ways are possible to enable the appellant- assessee to get benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in case the High Court judgment is reversed. One is to dismiss this C/TAXAP/1186/2018 ORDER appeal and allow the assessee to approach the Supreme Court; like some other assesses would have. The other way is to make some arrangement under which without filing the appeal, the assessee would also be able to claim the benefit of the judgment. Looking to the smallness of the disputed amount, we adopt the latter option by providing as under: This appeal at this stage is dismissed. However, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgment in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC [Supra], it would be open for the appellant to revive this appeal by filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgment. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 16. At the outset, ld. A.R. requested that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as aforesaid therefore this matter may be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A). 17. In view of the above and order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we set aside the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to decide the matter after taking into account order of the Supreme Court as and when will be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly will decide the matter.” 16. We note that Learned Counsel has argued a lot, stating that disallowance of employees PF and ESI is highly debatable issue which cannot be a subject matter of section 143(1)(a) of the Act, nevertheless, we have to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, which is a direct judgment on the issue of employees PF and ESI. 17. We note that Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. 206 ITR 0727, held that the decisions of the High Court are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The detailed findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: Page | 9 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. “17. From the foregoing discussion, the following propositions emerge: (a) The law declared by the Supreme Court being binding on all Courts in India, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all Courts, except, however, the Supreme Court itself which is free to review the same and depart from its earlier opinion if the situation so warrants. What is binding is, of course, the ratio of the decision and not every expression found therein. (b) The decisions of the High Court are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It does not extent beyond its territorial jurisdiction. (c) The position in regard to binding nature of the decisions of a High Court on different Benches of the same Court, may be summed up as follows: (i) A Single Judge of a High Court is bound by the decision of another Single Judge or a Division Bench of the same High Court. It would be judicial impropriety to ignore that decision. Judicial comity demands that a binding decision to which his attention had been drawn should neither be ignored nor overlooked. If he does not find himself in agreement with the same, the proper procedure is to refer the binding decision and direct the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question [see Food Corporation of India vs. Yadav Engineer & Contractor AIR 1982 SC 1302]. (ii) A Division Bench of a High Court should follow the decision of another Division Bench of equal strength or a Full Bench of the same High Court. If one Division Bench differs with another Division Bench of the same High Court, it should refer the case to a larger Bench. Where there are conflicting decisions of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the later decision is to be preferred if reached after full consideration of the earlier decisions. (d) The decision of one High Court is neither binding precedent for another High Court nor for Courts or Tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the State or territories in which the Court has jurisdiction. In other States or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may, at best, have only a persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare dicisis judgments of one High Court can be given the status of a binding precedent so far as other High Courts or Courts or Tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction are concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of stare decisis and also the various decisions of the Supreme Court which have interpreted the scope and ambit thereof. The fact that there is only one decision of any one High Court on a particular point or that a number of different High Courts have taken identical views in that regard is not at all relevant for that purpose. Whatever may be conclusion, the decisions cannot have the force of binding precedent on other High Courts or on any subordinate Courts or Tribunals within their jurisdiction. That status is reserved only for the decisions Page | 10 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. of the Supreme Court which are binding on all Courts in the country by virtue of Art. 141 of the Constitution.” 18. It is abundantly clear from the judgment of the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Thana Electricity Supply Ltd (Supra), that decisions of the High Court are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Hence, decision of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation(supra), is binding on us. 19. In the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 178 ITR 548 (SC), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of binding precedent has merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. As per the doctrine of precedent, all lower Courts, Tribunals and authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions are bound by the decisions of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction these Courts, Tribunals & authorities functions. In the case of State of Orissa & Ors. vs M.D. Illyos, [2006] 1 SCC 275 the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that a decision is a precedent on its own facts and that for a judgment to be a precedent it must contain the three basic postulates: (i)A finding of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of fact is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the individual effect of the above. In the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete "law". The judgment must be read as a whole and observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the court. 20. From the above it is vivid that we have to follow the judgment of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra).The mere fact, that further appeal (SLP) has been filed, before the Hon`ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court, in no way, means that Gujarat High Court`s decision under consideration is not operational and effective. Unless and until the decision of Gujarat High Court is reversed by Hon`ble Supreme Court, the same has to be given due effect. Thus, judicial discipline demands that order of the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court should be followed by the Surat Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 21. We have already noted that against the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the SLP has been filed by the assessee, which has not been adjudicated yet therefore we are of the view that the issue may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter after taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as and when will be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore these appeals at this stage are dismissed. However, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgment in the case of the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC [Supra], it would be open for the assessees to revive these appeals by Page | 11 ITA.128/SRT/2021/AY.2018-19 Alliance Fibres Ltd. filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgment. 22. In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes.” 13. Respectfully following the binding precedent in the case of Rekha R. Shukla (supra), we remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter after taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as and when will be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore ground no.3 raised by the assessee, in this appeal, at this stage is dismissed. However, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgment in the case of the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC [Supra], it would be open for the assessee to revive this issue by filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgment. 14. For statistical purposes, the ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18/05/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat / Ǒदनांक/ Date: 18/05/2022 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat