- (1.) Instant appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has arisen from judgment and order dated 30.03.2005 passed in I.T.A. No.300/Alld/2000 (Assessment Year 1995-96) (Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. M/s U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow).
(2.) This appeal has not been admitted so far and on the first day when it came up before Court it was connected with I.T.A. No. 21 of 2003. The reason being all the substantial questions of law formulated by appellant in this appeal are directly related with pending appeal bearing ITA No. 21 of 2003, as is evident from question nos. 1 and 2 formulated in appeal, which are reproduced as under: "(I). Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ITAT Bench Lucknow was justified in law in deleting the disallowance of rural subsidy and placing reliance on its order passed in assessee's own case in Asst. Year 1984-85 in ITA No. 2095 and 2052/All/95 for Asst. Year 1984-85 ignoring the fact that Deptt. has already filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad vide Income Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2003? (II). Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ITAT Bench Lucknow was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance made on account of subsidy on Rural Electrification ignoring the facts that the issue has already been decided in favour of Revenue by CIT(A) on merits in ITA No. 1911 (All)/1986 dated 21.12.1987 and ITA No. 1961/All/1984 both for the Assessment Year 1997-98 in assessee's own case against which department's reference No. 144 and 115) Alld)/1984 in the said order, are pending before the Hon'ble High Court?" ,
(3.) Both these questions in fact relates to disallowance of subsidy of rural electrification and interest paid by Assessee on fictitious assets. In our judgment of date passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 21 of 20013; Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Income Tax Appeal No. 25 of 1999; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P.S.E.B. Lucknow, these questions have been answered against Revenue.;