IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 313 of 2010 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= ADDL CIT (ASSTT) SR-1 BARODA - Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO LTD - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR KM PARIKH,ld.advocate for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 31/08/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
1. The appellant-Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 30.9.2008 (“Tribunal” for short) has preferred the present Appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) proposing the following questions of law for determination of this Court:
“A] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow the depreciation on the provision made for exchange rate difference of Rs.44,96,434/- ?
B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to exclude the excise duty at the time of valuing closing stock at the end of accounting period ?”
2. Upon hearing learned advocate Mr. K.M.Parikh appearing for the Revenue, it appears that the present appeal concerns dis-allowance of depreciation of Rs.44,96,434/- in respect of Rs.3,59,71,469/- being addition to plant and machinery on account of foreign exchange rate difference. Assessing Officer appears to be of the view that this depreciation was claimed on account of exchange rate difference and since the same was not actually paid at the end of the accounting year, as also on the ground that the same was allowable only at the time when the liability is actually paid, it rejected the claim of the respondent herein.
3. When approached the CIT(Appeals), it allowed such depreciation as in case of this very assessee in the year 1996-1997, 1997-98 and 1998-99 , the same was allowed.
4. With further challenge before the Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court rendered in case of New India Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 203 ITR 933 (Guj), it allowed the claim. As the facts are identical and issue is covered by the decision of earlier years. Dis-allowance of depreciation of Rs.44,96,434/- questioned by the Revenue, has no merit .
5. Learned advocate has also not been able to point out as to Whether Revenue has challenged the decisions of earlier years and whether the same resulted into favourable order for Revenue or not. More importantly, this approach having been adopted on the basis of settled decision of this Court, the same calls for no interference as no question of law arises.
6. As far as Question No. 2 is concerned, question is concluded against the Revenue by virtue of decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. reported in [2010] 327 ITR 369 (Guj) .Therefore, no question of law survives and this appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed, therefore in limine.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) bina