ITR/16/1996 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 16 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Applicant(s) Versus L N TALKIES - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 29/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) ITR/16/1996 2/3 JUDGMENT 1. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'B' has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (“the Act”) : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the ITO's action in disallowing payment in pursuance to investment payments in pursuance to CIT order u/s. 263 is unwarranted and bad in law and thereby allowing the relief claimed ?” 2. The Assessment Year is 1981-82 and the issue relates to the Assessment framed pursuant to the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT)in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal has held that the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the interest payment pursuant to the order of CIT under Section 263 of the Act is unwarranted. This finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of its earlier order in quantum proceedings. 3. It is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail for the simple reason that today by a separate Judgment rendered in ITR No.28 of 1995 in earlier round of proceeding for the very same Assessment Year the order of Tribunal has been up-held. As a consequence the question referred in the present Reference is required to be answered in affirmative i.e. in ITR/16/1996 3/3 JUDGMENT favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (D.A.MEHTA, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED,J.) sas