ACIT, Jaipur V. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD., Jaipur

ITA 1002/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5195 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T C JAIN DHK
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LN L; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1002/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD., 4 TH FLOOR, NEHRU SAHAKAR BHAWAN, BHAWANI SINGH ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACR 8906 R VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI M.S. MEENA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.C. JAIN (ADVOCATE) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23/06/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/07/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2015 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A .Y. 2012-13. THE COMMON EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.37,56,063/- MADE BY THE AO IN 2 ITA NO. 1002/JP/2015 ACIT VS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LT D. VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK BY INCLUDING ELEMENT OF EXCISE DUTY THEREIN. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPORT PASS FEE OF RS. 1,70,00,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT LIABILITY TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT IS FINALIZED. (III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,27,542/- MADE BY TH E AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON FDR. (IV) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELET ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,53,81,200/- CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS PAYMENT OF PRIVILEGE FEES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID EXPENSES ARE CA PITAL IN NATURE. (V) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO STATE RENEWAL FUND OF RS. 7,30,000/- AS MADE BY THE A.O. (VI) (A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.2,96,289/- MADE FOR DEPOSITING THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN THE RESPECTIVE ACTS. (B) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 3 ITA NO. 1002/JP/2015 ACIT VS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LT D. 43B AND NOT BY SECTION 36(1 )(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF I.T.ACT. 2. REGARDING GROUND NOS. (I) TO (V) OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BE NCH, JAIPUR PASSED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 31/JP/2013 FOR A .Y. 2009-10 ORDER DATED 17/04/2015 & ITA NO. 62/JP/2014 ORDER DATED 2 4/2/2016. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ID ENTICAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL, HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR 2009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 17/04/2015 AND IN ITA NO. 62/JP/2014 ORDER DATED 24/2/2016. THE OPERATIVE PORT ION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHS ORDER CASE IN ITA NO. 31/JP/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. W E FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR T HE 4 ITA NO. 1002/JP/2015 ACIT VS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LT D. ASSESSEE. REVENUES GROUNDS NO. (I) TO (V) ARE COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY SUCCESSIVE JUDGMENTS O F THE ITAT AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE DETAILED REASONINGS ARE MENTIONED IN THE ITATS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008-09. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE GROUND NOS. (I) TO (V) OF THE REVENUE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4.1. APROPOS GROUND NO. (VI) ALSO, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN DELETED IN TERMS OF SECTION 43B ON ACTUAL PAYMENT B ASIS IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHICH IS UPHELD. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINAT E BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 5. GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL, THE LD ASSESSING OFF ICER DISALLOWED THE CONTRIBUTION BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-13 ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF ONE DAY IN DEP OSITING THE EPF CONTRIBUTION AND THERE IS DELAY OF ONE OR TWO DAYS I N DEPOSIT THE ESI CONTRIBUTION. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED , THE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESI ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 27/10/2015 HAS ALLOWED THE CONTRIBUTION ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT. 5 ITA NO. 1002/JP/2015 ACIT VS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LT D. THE LD DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSI NG OFFICER. AT THE OUTSET THE LD AR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE LD CIT(A) 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND AL SO GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IT HAS NOT DISPUTED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JVVNL 265 CTR 62 (RAJ) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SBBJ (2014) 99 DTR 131 (RAJ) HA S ALLOWED THE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF AND ESI IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS GR OUND AND HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CON TRIBUTION TOWARDS PF AND ESI WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/07/2016. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN YFYR DQEKJ (BHAGCHAND) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ U;KF;D LNL;@ U;KF;D LNL;@ U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04 TH JULY, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR.. 6 ITA NO. 1002/JP/2015 ACIT VS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LT D. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD., JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1002/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR