- (1.) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-B, has referred the following question at the instance of Revenue under sec. 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, ('the Act' ). "whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow interest under section 214 of the Act?"
(2.) THE assessment year is 1974-75. The facts relevant for the present, have been stated by the Tribunal, as under: "2. The CIT (A) vide his order dated 13. 8. 1987 in Appeal No. CIT (A) II/xiii-104/87-88 directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the interest keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bardolia Textiles (151 ITR 389 ). But the A. O. refused to revise the interest because the department has not accepted the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the matter was before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order of A. O. was again challenged and the CIT (A) vide order dated 7. 9. 90 passed in Appeal No. CIT (A)II/cos. II (4)/132/167/87-88/88-89 (IA) directed the A. O. To go through the claim of the assessee and to allow the interest as per decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bardolia Textiles (supra ). The Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat relied by the CIT (A), dismissed the appeal. "
(3.) HEARD Mrs. M. M. Bhatt learned Standing Counsel appearing for the applicant " Revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent " assessee. Mrs. Bhatt has fairly invited attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. , reported in (2006) 280 ITR 643 to submit that the issue stands concluded. In light of this position, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.;