M/s. M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal V. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

CO 42/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8537 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT KHAA
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.13/IND/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS M/S. M.P. RAJYA VAN VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL PAN AACCM 1081 C :: RESPONDENT CROSS-OBJECTION NO.42/IND/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.13/IND/2013) A.Y. 2009-10 M/S. M.P. RAJYA VAN VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL :: OBJECTOR VS. ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY SHRI V.K. KARAN, CIT/DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUMIT KHABYA DATE OF HEARING 8 . 5 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 . 5 .2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.10.2012, PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY, 2 BHOPAL, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE BROADLY WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PROFIT OR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT TERMED AS LEA SE RENT AMOUNTING TO RS.60,28,46,992/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CORPORATE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.16,46,425/-, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO IN CROSS- OBJECTION. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED CIT DR, SHRI V.K. KARAN , CIT/DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES BY FURTHER SUBMITTING THAT THE REVENUE IS IN APPEALS BEF ORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS WHER EAS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SUMIT KHABYA POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUES ARE COVERED AGAINS T THE REVENUE BY THE DECISIONS OF THE INDORE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES CASES ITSELF AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REVE NUE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION U/S 158A(1) OF THE INCOM E 3 TAX ACT IN FORM NO. 8 BEFORE THIS BENCH ON THE GROU ND THAT IDENTICAL QUESTIONS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIG H COURT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ANNEXED COPY OF THE DECISIONS OF ITAT, INDORE IN ASSESSEES CASES ITSELF AND COPY OF QUESTION OF LAW BY CLAIMING THAT THE QUESTION OF L AW BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS IDENTICAL FOR THE EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2001-02 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH AN UNDERTAKING AS CONTAINED IN DECLARATION MADE U/S 158A(1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT/DR HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS APPLICATION. 3. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ACCEPT THE DECLARATION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S 158A(1) OF THE ACT ESPECIALLY WHEN IDENTICAL QUESTION OF LAW IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT, TO AVOID REPETITIVE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE/REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE ISSUES AS ACCEPTED BY 4 BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY ITAT, INDORE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSEL F. IN VIEW OF THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPLICATION U/S 158A(1) OF THE ACT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ISSUE IS PEN DING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND ITAT, INDORE HAS ALR EADY DECIDED THE ISSUES AGAINST THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, ANY DECISION FROM THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WILL BE BINDIN G ON BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, TO AVOID REPETITIVE APPEAL S, THIS DECLARATION U/S 158A(1) OF THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISPOSED OF IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 4. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS-OBJECTION NO.42/IND/2013, WHEREIN THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IS TH AT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE ADDITION OF RS.4,76,040/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIR MED CREDITS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE IS 5 THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE VOLUMINOUS, THEREFORE, CERTAIN ITEMS OF VARIOUS CREDITS AND DEBIT S COULD NOT BE RECONCILED AT THE END OF THE YEAR BUT CONTINUO US EFFORTS WERE MADE TO RECONCILE THE SAME IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. ON QUESTIONING FROM THE BENCH, WHETHER THE SAME WERE RECONCILE, IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME REMAINED UNRECONCILED DUE TO THE LARGE VOLUME OF ACCOUNTS OF T HE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E CONTENDED THAT THESE MAY NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS. REL IANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE INDORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MP LAGHU UDYOG, BHOPAL VS. DCI T (2004) 1 ITJ 141 (INDORE ITAT). THE LD. CIT/DR STRO NGLY DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY FURTHER CONTENDING THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF MP LAGHU UDYOG, BHOPAL VS. DCIT (SUPRA) ARE DIFFERENT AS THERE WERE 30 BRANCHES, WHEREAS IN THE CAS E OF 6 THE ASSESSEE, THE UNRECONCILED ENTRIES PERTAIN TO THE SAME DIVISION. 4.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN UNCONFIRMED CREDITS OF RS.4,76,040/- UNDER THE HEAD OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES IN SCHEDULE J OF THE BALANCE-SHEE T. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR UNRECONCILED CREDITS. WE FIND THAT RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT STAGE/FIRST APPELLATE STAGE AND EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCIL E SUCH CREDITS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF MP LAGHU UDYOG, BHOPAL VS. DCIT (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL REACHED TO A CONCLUSION AS THER E WERE 30 BRANCHES, BUT IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSES SEE, 7 THE UNRECONCILED CREDITS PERTAIN TO ONE DIVISION. TH E ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY LARGE STAFF/QUALIFIED STAFF, THEREFORE, AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT EVE N TILL TODAY, NO SUCH RECONCILIATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A), ON THIS ISSU E, IS AFFIRMED. THIS CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF APPLICATION FILED U/S 158A(1) OF THE ACT, WH EREAS THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT TH E CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 8.5.2013. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8.5.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GUARD FILE !VYS!