Scooters India Limited, Lucknow V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Lucknow

ITA 131/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9119 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT NAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: V B BHARGAVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.131/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED SAROJINI NAGAR LUCKNOW V. DY. CIT-IV LUCKNOW TAN/PAN:AADCS7796R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. V. B. BHARGAVA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. AMIT NAGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 09 01 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 01 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ISSUES AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERIT BUT WENT ON TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS. 2. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT RIGHTFULLY AND LEGALLY FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 251/143(3) DATED 14/03/2013 BUT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS FOR NO FAULT OF THE APPELLANT BUT DUE TO MISCONCEIVED DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN ORDER DATED 31.08.2010 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEALS) AGAINST FACTS AND LAW HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN A LOGICAL MANNER ON ADDITION OF RS. 34 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE OF 17 NO. OF DISMANTLED VEHICLE AND NOT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER THEREON. :- 2 -: 4. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEALS) AGAINST FACTS AND LAW FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND GIVE ANY FINDING IN TREATING THE ROYALTY RECEIVABLE OF RS. 2315205/- AND INTEREST ACCRUED ON TEM DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.19099225/- AGGREGATING TO RS.21414430/- WHICH WERE SHOWN UNDER THE SCHEDULE OF CURRENT ASSET AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS APPEAL IS BARRED BY SIX DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 251/143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(1) OF THE ACT. HE IS ONLY EMPOWERED TO CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. BEFORE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 1.6.2001, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO EMPOWERED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE LD. :- 3 -: CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY HELD THIS APPEAL TO BE INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED THE SAME. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) RAISING GROUNDS ON MERIT ALSO. 6. THE LD. D.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THIS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, AS IT WAS FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSEQUENT TO THE ILLEGAL ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, ANY ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT THERETO IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, ANY APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN, WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD JANUARY, 2015 JJ:0901 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR :- 4 -: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR