High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd.
Asst. Year 1995-96
G.S. Singhvi & Nirmal Singh, JJ.
ITC No. 104 of 1999
12th February, 2001
R.P. Sawhney with Rajesh Bindal, for the Revenue : None appeared, for the Assessee
G.S. SINGHVI, J.:
This is a petition under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), for directing the Tribunal, Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”), to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question of law to this Court : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the adjustments of interest payable to the IFCI and sales tax penalty made by the AO under s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961, while processing the case under s. 143(1)(a) as not being prima facie adjustment ?”
A perusal of the record shows that the assessee filed return for the year 1995-96 on 30th Nov., 1995, declaring nil income. While processing the return under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, the AO made addition of Rs. 22,04,344 on account of interest paid to the IFCI and Rs. 13,88,741 on account of sales tax, etc. Later on, he issued notice under s. 143(2) and completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 68,83,890. The first appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the AO was dismissed by the CIT(A), Faridabad (for short “the CIT(A)”), but the second appeal filed by it was allowed by the Tribunal which held that the adjustments made by the AO cannot be termed as prima facie adjustment within the meaning of s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. Reference application filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that no debatable issue arose out of the order passed by it.
We have heard Shri R.P. Sawhney, senior advocate, for the petitioner. In our opinion, the question sought by the Revenue merits consideration by this Court because it involves interpretation of the ambit and scope of s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, we allow the petition and direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned question to this Court.
[Citation : 252 ITR 523]