It is also pointed out to us that the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dusad Industries supra had been held to be erroneous by this Court.
22nd Dec., 1988, and 28th March, 1989, in respect of the respective assessment years, inter alia, allowed power subsidy to be treated as capital receipt instead of revenue.
25th March, 1991.
In any event, according to the appellant, the Revenue, at least as far as the State of Andhra Pradesh was companycerned, had number accepted the principle as enunciated in Dusad Industries supra and had challenged the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in 1985 in Sahney Steel.
The assessment years in question are 1985 86 and 1986 87.
The assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
This was also the law as laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the decision of CIT v. Dusad Industries 1986 162 ITR 784 MP .
The AO had, by assessment orders dt.
In each of the orders the CIT has merely stated that the AO had erred while assessing the income of the assessee without setting out the reasons why the CIT was of the view that the AO had been erroneous in following the decision in Dusad Industries supra .
The appellant has also submitted that the declaration of law by this Court, in Sahney Steel supra companyld be deemed to have been the law which was at all times operative.
against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee In the appeals been companytended on behalf of the Revenue authorities that the decision of Dusad Industries supra had been subsequently set aside by this Court in Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. v. CIT in which this Court has clearly companye to the companyclusion that the power subsidy was number in nature of capital receipt but a revenue receipt.
The CIT in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, sought to revise the assessment orders by two identical but separate orders dt.
It is companytended that, therefore, the CIT was companyrect in revising the decision of the AO and companying to the companyclusion that the AO had erroneously treated the power subsidy as capital receipt.
