PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 17-11-2009 passed by this Court in I.T.A. No. 105 of 2009 (M/s. Prestige Estates Projects (Private) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax). He further submits that the said judgment dated 17-11-2009 has been carried by the assessee to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7721 of 2010. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 12-3-2012 has granted leave and expedited hearing of the appeal. However, stay has been refused. In the circumstances, he prayed for disposing of this appeal with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order only after disposal of the S.L.P. (Civil Appeal) by the Supreme Court.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal stands answered by the judgment of this Court in I.T.A. No. 105 of 2009. In view of the judgment of this Court in I.T.A. No. 105 of 2009, the substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

(3.) We, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders, as contemplated by Section 260(1-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only after the Supreme Court finally dispose of the S.L.P. arising from the judgment of this Court in I.T.A. No. 105 of 2009. It is needless to mention that the Assessing Officer shall pass consequential orders, after disposal of the S.L.P. in the Supreme Court, in conformity with the order that will be passed by the Supreme Court. However, this order shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from collecting tax if any, due from the assessee, if not already collected. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.