M/s. La-Chem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

CO 234/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5098 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANEESH BAHUGUNA
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.O.NOS.234 & 233/DEL/2010 (IN I.T.A. NOS.2256 & 2257/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1995-96 & 1996-97 LA-CHEM PHARMACEUTICAL P. LTD. INCOME-TAX OFFI CER, 10-351, SUNDER VIHAR, VS. WARD 4(3), NEW DELHI. PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACL2369N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION REJ ECTED) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANEESH BAHUGUNA, SR. DR. O R D E R PER BENCH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS IN THE ABOV E CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995- 96 AND 1996-97. 2. GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE AS UN DER:- C.O. NO.234/DE/2010 : 1. THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS BAD IN LAW AS W ELL AS ON FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CON FIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2 3. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATIO N WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAV E BEEN AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THERE IS NO ADVERSE REMARKS IN HIS REPORT. 4. THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID MADE BY A.O. FOR WANT OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS TOTALLY WRONG. THE ASSESSE E COMPANY EVEN PAID COMMISSION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 6-97 AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWANCE BY A.O. C.O. NO.233/DEL/2010 1. THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS BAD IN LAW AS W ELL AS ON FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 2. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIONS U/S 68 OF RS.14,00,000/- JUST WANT OF BANK STATEMENT WRONGLY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILE D CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SHAREHOLDERS WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RELY UPON THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD. (2008) 216 CTR 195 ( SC) BUT THE A.O. EVEN DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME. 3. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIONS OF CASH CREDITS JUST FOR WANT OF BANK STATEMENT WHICH IS WRONG. THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y FILED CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE A.O. BUT HE DID NOT CONSIDER T HE SAME. 3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTI ONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AGGRIEVED BY ANY PART OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A)S ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, TH E ISSUES RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY THE LEARNED 3 CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. THEREFORE, THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT MAINTAINAB LE. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE, ARE DISMISSED. 5. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.