COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V Vs. POLESTAR INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raising the following proposed substantial questions of law, aggrieved by the order dated January 31, 2013 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'):

(2.) The learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt appearing with the learned advocate Mrs. Mauna Bhatt for the appellant-Revenue has forcefully submitted that the Tribunal's order is erroneous inasmuch as the view taken by the Bombay High Court and Gauhati High Court and thereafter, followed by this Court, is not a correct approach. He further urged that no double benefits can be made available to the respondent-assessee, who has already enjoyed a long term capital gain. He further urged that for computation of capital gain arrived at on sale of depreciable assets a method is introduced to disentitle indexing to such owners. And, as section 54EC of the Act is applicable in transfer of long term capital assets, the respondent-assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under section 54EC of the Act. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Common Wealth Trust Ltd. v. CIT, 1997 228 ITR 1, wherein the Supreme Court has held thus:

(3.) The Madras High Court in the case of M. Raghavan v. Asstt. CIT, 2004 266 ITR 145has held in favour of the Revenue by saying that the said provision was never meant to avail multiple benefits to the respondent-assessee, who sells depreciable assets, by holding thus: