HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.328 of 2014 Date: 10.06.2014 Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-III, IT Towers, A.C. Guards Masab Tank, Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Suven Life Sciences Limited, Serene Chambers, Road No.5, Avenue-7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.328 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 29.7.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2009-2010 on the following suggested questions of law.
i. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in treating the loss incurred by the respondent- assessee before the date of maturity which is not a contingent liability but an accrued one as an allowable expenditure in view of the Madras High Court decision in CIT Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, reported in 151 ITR 441?
ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue without appreciating that the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119 of the Act are binding on the Assessing Authority only?”
We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, and gone through the relevant portion of the lengthy judgment of the learned Tribunal.
It appears that the learned Tribunal has decided the issue that the loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be an allowable deduction or not. While deciding the issue the learned Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T., Delhi v. Woodward Governor
[1]
India Pvt. Ltd. and following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai, in the case of D.C.I.T.
[2]
v. Bank of Behrain and Kuwait , has concluded in the same lines, and it is not argued before us that the Judgment of the Supreme Curt relied on by the learned Tribunal has no manner of application in this case. It is only argued that Madras High Court has taken a separate view. We are unable to accept this contention, as a different view to that of the Supreme Court taken by a High Court cannot be accepted by us.
Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
Before we part with this matter, we observe that it would be ideal and proper that the learned Tribunal should write separate judgments for separate assessment years unless the issues are identical in all the assessment years. This sort of the impugned judgment clubbing all the assessment years for different issues creates lot of inconvenience and confusion and it should be avoided.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 10.06.2014
Note:- Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Tribunal.
(B/O) bnr/gbs
[1] 312 ITR 254
[2] [2010] 132 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 505