SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) No real question of law has been sought to be raised here, but the issue canvassed by the Revenue is as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) completed the exercise as was directed by a Supreme Court order of March 26, 2012. According to the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to conduct the exercise in terms of the Supreme Court order and the Appellate Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate the default on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals).
(2.) An issue arose on a previous appeal before this Court as to whether the assessee herein was liable to pay advance tax. This Court was of the view that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax. The matter was carried by the Revenue to the Supreme Court. Prior to the Supreme Court taking up the matter, a judgment was rendered in the case of JCIT v. Rolta India Ltd. (330 ITR 470) where the Supreme Court held that the advance tax was payable by an assessee as the present one.
(3.) In dealing with the relevant appeal arising out of this Court's order on the previous appeal, the Supreme Court directed as follows by its order of March 26, 2012: "Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the question of deficiency in payment of Advance Tax has been gone into by the lower Authorities and, consequently, by the High Court. In the circumstances, that question needs to be examined by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The question, which has been examined by the High Court, is, whether Advance Tax is payable on Book Profits? That issue has been decided by this court in favour of the Revenue in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rolta India Ltd., reported in (2011) 330 ITR 470 . Thus, we direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine the question of shortfall, if any, in payment of Advance Tax on the basis that the judgement in the case of Rolta India Ltd. (supra) now applies to the facts of the present case.";