High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Amtek Auto Ltd. vs. CIT
Section : 234B, 234C, 115JA
Adarsh Kumar Goel And Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 588 And 589 Of 2006
March 25, 2011
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. – This order will dispose of I. T. A. No. 589 of 2006 (Amtek Auto Ltd. v. CIT) and I. T. A. No. 588 of 2006 (Amtek Auto Ltd. v. CIT) as it has been stated that both the appeals involve a similar question.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), against the order dated June 9, 2006, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 5519/5520/Del of 2003 for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 raising the following substantial questions of law :
“(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in view of the judgment rendered in the case of CIT v. Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Co. Ltd.  279 ITR 123 (P&H) when the hon’ble Supreme Court had already affirmed the contrary view in the case of CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd.  284 ITR 434 (SC) ?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law as well as on facts in recording its conclusion based on irrelevant findings while dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Co. Ltd.  279 ITR 123 (P&H), which stood overruled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd.’s case  284 ITR 434 (SC) ?
(iii) Whether interest is leviable under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in case of an assessment of a company, on the basis of book profits under section 115JA, even when the entire exercise of computing income under section 115J is done at the end of the financial year, and the provisions of sections 207 to 210 cannot be made applicable until and unless the accounts are audited and balance-sheet prepared ?
(iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the principle of judicial precedent and judicial discipline ?”
3. The learned counsel for the parties state that the matter is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jt. CIT v. Rolta India Ltd.  330 ITR 470/ 196 Taxman 594/ 9 taxmann.com 36 which has also been followed by this court in CIT v. Steel Steips, Leasing Ltd.  338 ITR 455 (Punj. & Har.).
4. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
[Citation : 338 ITR 550]