IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the treatment of interest income received on staff loan and other advances as business income or income from other sources should be based on the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Coordinate Bench, and the Tribunal's decision should not be contrary to these binding decisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Bhargav D. Karia, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval for the respondent.

2. Rule. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

3. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.05.2023 passed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in Misc. Application preferred by the petitioner being M.A. No. 100/Ahd/2022 in ITA No. 445/Ahd/18 in Special Civil Application No. 20400/2023, M.A.No. 97/Ahd/2022 in ITA No. 2089/Ahd/2013, M.A.No. 99/Ahd/2022 in ITA No. 1751/Ahd/2016.

4. Brief facts of the case in all the three petitions are of the same assessee pertaining to the three different assessment years. Therefore, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common order.

5. For the sake of convenience, facts of Special Civil Application No. 20400/2023 is considered as lead case. The petitioner-Company is owned by the Government of Gujarat carrying on business of distribution of electricity.

5.1 For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the petitioner filed return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil after claiming set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation.

5.2 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice dated 04.09.2014 under section 143(2) and final assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016. The Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment, treated the interest income received on staff loan and other advances along with the miscellaneous receipt as income from other sources as against the income from business or profession as declared by the petitioner. Other additions were also made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A) who, by order dated 26.12.2017, disposed of the appeal by partly allowing the same. Challenging the order of the CIT(A), an appeal was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being ITA No. 445 of 2018. The petitioner raised the ground No.2 with regard to confirming the additions by CIT (A) with respect to interest income from staff loans and advances, fix deposits and advances to others amounting to Rs. 2,91,78,000/- as income from other sources as against the business income. The appeal was fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 30.06.2022 and a chart was provided on behalf of the petitioner along with compilation of the judgements running into 117 pages. Reliance was placed also on the judgement dated 16.03.2020 passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 63/2020 in case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. DCIT to demonstrate that this Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal in case of the said assessee wherein it was held that interest income from staff loan and advances is income from business or profession and not income from other source. It was also pointed out that the said judgement was followed by the Tribunal in case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd in ITA No. 3441/Ahd/2015 by remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer for deciding the same in accordance with the direction by this Court.

5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of pointing out such facts, the Tribunal passed a consolidated order dated 24.08.2022 in a bunch of appeals of the petitioner from Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 and wrongly distinguished the judgements relied upon on behalf of the petitioner on non- existent facts or by making incorrect observation in respect of the treatment of interest income received from staff loan and advances and the Tribunal also refrained from dealing with orders which were cited before it by the petitioner. The Tribunal remanded the issue of treatment of interest income received on staff loans