Vishal Paper Industries Private Ltd., Patiala V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 1328/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8261 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Capital asset

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.1328/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) VISHAL PAPER INDUSTRIES VS. THE A.C.I.T., PRIVATE LIMITED, CIRCLE PATIALA. VILLAGE KHUSHROPUR, MAIN ROAD, PATIALA. PAN: AACCV2149L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ATUL GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K,. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 10.10.2012 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.34,16, 372/- UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN RELATION TO THE SAME: 2 1. THAT LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 5461372/- UNDER PROVIS O TO SECTION 36(1) (III) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSDATED19.11.2011 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE FACTS AND FIG URES GIVEN IN THESE REPLIES HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN T HE BODY OF THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THESE FACTS AND FIGURES HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AUTHORITIES. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. 3. THAT DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ON SUPPOSITIONS AN D PRESUMPTIONS. THE PREREQUISITE FOR APPLICATION OF PRO VISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III) HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED. 3. BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ADDITION TO CAPITAL ASSET AMOUNTI NG TO RS.6,07,41,774/-. HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.6,41,81,092/- AND RS.5,26,21,635/- AND PAID INTE REST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,22,44,479/-. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF THE MAJOR EXPENSES INCURRED TO ACQUIRE NEW ASSET NO EVIDENCE OF PUTTING THEM TO US E HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER HE FOUND THA T THE COMPANYS WORKING CAPITAL WORKED OUT TO BE RS.2,83,97,641/- WHICH WAS NOT ENOUGH TO FUND THE INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSET TO THE TUNE OF RS.6.07 CR ORES. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS HAD BEEN USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSET. HE 3 FURTHER FOUND THAT THE TOTAL COST OF ASSET UNDER INSTALLATION AMOUNTED TO RS.3,14,67,021/- AND, THER EFORE, WENT ON TO DISALLOW INTEREST @ 11% THEREON AMOUNTIN G TO RS.34,61,372/-. 4. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPU GNED ISSUE WAS COVERED AGAINST IT BY THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IDEN TICAL ADDITION HAD BEEN CONFIRMED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 ALSO UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 AND, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE C OVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEA R. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPE ALS), THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER W AS COVERED AGAINST IT BY THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS POINTEDLY ASKED AT BAR WHETHER SUCH AN ADMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE THE LD. C IT (APPEALS). TO THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE 4 ADMITTED THAT SUCH AN ADMISSION HAD BEEN MADE BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). 6. THE LD. DR AT THIS JUNCTURE POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE IS SUE WAS COVERED AGAINST IT, IT COULD NOT TAKE TOTALLY A DIVERGENT STAND AT THIS STAGE BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS CO VERED AGAINST IT BY THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S ADMITTED TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE L D. CIT (APPEALS). HAVING SAID SO, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTA ND WHAT GRIEVANCE REMAINS WITH THE ASSESSEE NOW, WHEN ADMIT TEDLY THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE PRECE DING YEAR WILL SQUARELY APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO A ND THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE OR TWO VIEWS ABOUT THAT. FURTHER WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CI T (APPEALS) THAT IT WAS A COVERED MATTER MEANING THER EBY THAT THE ISSUE AND THE FACTS INVOLVED THEREIN WERE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) FOLLOWING TH E JUDGMENT OF THE PRECEDING YEAR HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E, THERE CANNOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE REMAINING WITH THE AS SESSEE 5 AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). THE L D. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, WHICH WE FIND, HE FURTHER VERIFIED BY ASKING FOR THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE, HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY. THE ACT ION OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE AGGRIEVED BY THE ACT ION OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). MOREOVER, HAVING HIMSELF AD MITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WERE IDENTICAL AND HENCE COVERED BY THE DECISI ON OF THE I.T.A.T. FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT NOW TAKE A COMPLETE U TURN ALSO A ND STATE BEFORE US THAT THE FACTS WERE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THIS WOULD TANTAM OUNT TO MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APP EALS) MISLEADING HIM AND FURTHER STOPPING HIM FROM MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE, THOUGH WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT SOLELY RELY UPON THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT GOT THE SAME VERIFIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. THEREFORE, ALSO WE HOLD TH AT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT NOW MAKE A NEW CASE BEFORE US BY DISTINGUISHING THE PRESENT CASE WITH THAT IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AND THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE DISALL OWANCE 6 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHICH AS PER ASSESSEE S OWN SUBMISSIONS AND AS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO, WAS IDENTICAL ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NOS.1, 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 16 TH MARCH, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH