- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of I.T.A. Nos. 128 and 126 of 2002, which have been filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'), challenging common order dated 24 -12 -2001, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for brevity, 'the, Tribunal'), in I.T.A. Nos. 209(ASR) 2001 and I.T.A. No. 111 (ASR) 1999, in respect of assessment years 1998 -99 and 1996 -97 respectively. It is claimed that following substantial questions of law would emerge for determination of this Court: - 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing; Assessing Officer not to include depreciation while calculating valuation of, closing stock when closing stock was not being valued on direct cost method in accounting year relevant to assessment year 1995 -96?
(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1,22,64,257 although there was no such dispute before the Commissioner (Appeals)? After hearing learned counsel for the appellant -revenue and perusing the record we find that the matter is no longer res integra. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT : [1999] 240 ITR 355 has already answered the questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of above, following the same principle the questions of law raised in the instant appeals are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee being squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (supra).;