ACIT, Chandigarh V. M/s SAB Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 1316/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9797 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1316/CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE A.C.I.T., VS. M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LTD., CIRCLE 5(1), SCO-49-50, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH. MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAGCS5078H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 21.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 27.7.2010 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.110.70 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF RETENT ION MONEY/WITHHELD MONEY. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON RETENTION MONEY, WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN 2 IN THE GROSS WORK DONE AS PART OF TOTAL RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINT AINED ITS ACCOUNTS AS PER MERCANTILE SYSTEM. THE RETENTION M ONEY IS SOME SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE WORK DONE BY THE ASSES SEE, WHICH IS RETAINED BACK/WITHHELD BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND IS NORMALLY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AFT ER COMPLETION OF DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD. HOWEVER, TH IS MUCH AMOUNT HAS BECOME DUE OR HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSE E. WHEN THE REMAINING PART OF WORK DONE IS MEASURED, T HE BILL IS RAISED AND THE AMOUNT IS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE, THE RETENTION/WITHHELD MONEY BECOMES RECEIVABLE BUT HAS ALREADY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE GROSS WORK D ONE AS PART OF TOTAL RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCO RDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE ABOVE AMOUNT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ABOVE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RETENTION MONEY WITHHELD BY THE CLIENTS BY FOLLOWING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY TAXED THE RETENTIO N MONEY RELEASED DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.157.88 LAC S. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 BY THE C IT (APPEALS). THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH ALSO DEC IDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN A NUMBER OF PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, COPIES OF THE SAME ARE FILED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY T HE ORDERS OF 3 THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) REPRODUCE D THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR MANY YEARS IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NOTED THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY HIMSELF IN ASSESSEES CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL DISCIPL INE, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 24.6.2011 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.542/CHANDI/2010, IN WHICH DEPARTM ENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER S. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.61 OF 2004 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 6 .5.2013 DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. COPIES OF THE O RDERS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THESE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF I .T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH AS WELL AS THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT, AS REFERRED TO ABOVE. IT MAY ALSO BE N OTED HERE THAT THE ORDERS, WHICH REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER OF I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH, THE LEARNED D.R. CONCED ED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY EARLIER ORDERS, AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, AND NO INF IRMITY HAVE 4 BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 ST JULY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH S