ITO, Rajahmundry V. Bommana Bharathi, Rajahmundry

ITA 121/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2873 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.120/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ITO WARD-1 RAJAHMUNDRY BOMMANA RAMACHANDRA RAO RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AHHPB 5566C ITA NO.121/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ITO WARD-1 RAJAHMUNDRY BOMMANA BHARATI RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ACEPB 2833C APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON COMMON GROUND THAT CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH TH E PURCHASE OF PACKING MATERIAL AFTER HOLDING THAT THESE PAYMENTS FALL OUT SIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DEVI FISHERIES LIMITED 420/VIZAG/2006 DATED 25 TH MAY, 2009 WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD T HAT MAIN PURPOSE IN BUYING THE PACKING MATERIAL WAS TO OBTAIN GOODS FOR THE PU RPOSE OF PACKING AND THE FACT THAT INCIDENTALLY SOME PRINTING WAS REQUIRED T O BE DONE BY THE SUPPLIER WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE; THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO WORK CONTRACT INVOLVED AND 2 ACCORDINGLY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT ATTR ACTED, FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENTS OF THIS DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LIMITED IN IT APPEAL NO.354 OF 2005 DATED 25.8.2005 . A COPY OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PLACED ON RECORD FOR PERUSAL. 3. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED A RELI ANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DEVI FISHERIES LTD. (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DABUR INDIA LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE IN BUYING THE PACKING MATERIAL WAS TO OBTAIN GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PACKING AND THE FACT THAT INCIDENTALLY S OME PRINTING WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE SUPPLIER WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE; T HEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT ATTRACTED. SINCE THE IMPUG NED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.8.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 18 TH AUGUST, 2010 3 COPY TO 1 ITO WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY 2 SRI BOMMANA RAMACHANDRA RAO, PROP. M/S. BOMMANA R EADYMADE, MAIN ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM