IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.24 of 2001 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 M/s The Mansa Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Savita Saxena, Standing Counsel for the respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.1312(ASR)/1992 for the assessment year 1989-90 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexures P2, P8 and P9 are legally sustainable? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the imposition of additional tax at Rs.10,34,340/- especially when there is a loss as per the return filed, also as per the order of assessment, no tax is I.T.A. No.24 of 2001 payable as per assessment order and hence is legally sustainable? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal in upholding the imposition of additional tax on the basis of the law amended latter on retrospectively is legally sustainable? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order (Annexure P8) sustaining the imposition of additional tax of Rs.10,34,340/- on the basis of the return filed, order passed and the law as on that date is legally sustainable? v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the imposition of additional tax is legally sustainable inspite of the specific mandate provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd., 243 ITR page 48.” Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the issue is covered against the assessee by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 200. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 18, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 2