Commissioner Of Income-tax v. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd.
2005-01-17
G.S.SINGHVI, VINEY MITTAL
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. On an application made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A", New Delhi (for short, "the Tribunal"), has, vide its order dated September 14, 1987, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that deductions allowed under Section 80G falling under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be considered as sums not includible in the total income for income-tax assessments and, therefore, would not fall for deduction under Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the purpose of computing the capital employed ?" 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, it is not necessary to dispose of the reference by recording a detailed order because the question similar to the one framed by the Tribunal in the present case has already been answered by the Supreme Court against the Revenue in Second ITO V/s. Stumpp Schuele and Somappa (P.) Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 108. 3. Shri D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the Revenue, fairly stated that the proposition laid down in the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the present case. 4. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court. While answering a question similar to the one referred by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved the judgments of the various High Courts including two judgments of this court in CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. [1989] 178 ITR 635 and CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. [1989] 178 ITR 173. 5. In view of the above, the question referred by the Tribunal is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. The reference is disposed of in the manner indicated above.