Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (Act), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated 16th July, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.2567/Kol of 2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000.
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court while admitting this appeal on January 12, 2004 formulated the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was liable to pay interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act on the tax payable on the book profit computed u/s 115J of the Act notwithstanding the fact that it was a deemed profit. It appears that the aforesaid question has recently been answered by a Three-Judge-Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rolta India Ltd., reported in [2011] 330 ITR 470 (SC) in the affirmative and against the assessee and as such, we propose to dispose of this appeal by following the said decision. Mr. Sen, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, submitted before us that by virtue of Section 115JA a legal fiction has been created by which if total income is found to be less than 30% of the book profit, the total income should be deemed to be 30% of the profit and in such a case, if chargeability of interest under Sections 234B and 234C are held applicable only in view of sub-Section (4) of Section 115JA, it would amount to adding another legal fiction to an existing legal fiction of Section 115JA(1). According to Mr. Sen in case of a legal fiction, which has to be interpreted for giving its full logical coverage, another legal fiction cannot be added to the same and for the aforesaid proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta Vs. Moon Mills Ltd., reported in 59 ITR 574 (SC).
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Sen in deciding the matter in the case of Rolta India Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect reflected from its own decision in the case of Moon Mills Ltd. (Supra) and the case of CIT vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd., reported in (2006) 284 ITR 434 (SC) and thus, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rolta India Ltd. (Supra) does not lay down the correct proposition of law and if those two decisions were taken note of, the ultimate conclusion would have been otherwise. After hearing Mr. Sen, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the decision in case of Rolta India Ltd. (Supra), we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sen that a proposition of law laid down in a decision of a Supreme Court loses its value as a precedent simply because a particular point was not considered in the said decision while arriving at the decision in question.;