DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1331/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61720 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : D NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : D NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1331/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 DCIT CIRCLE 4(1), ROOM NO. 407, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI. VS. LLOYD ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING LTD. M-13A, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI AAACL0484G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.K. MISHRA, DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL, CA DATE OF HEARING : 04-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-06-2012 ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL, AM: THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN UP THREE GROUNDS IN THIS APPE AL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN COMPUTING THE DISALLOW ANCE FROM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, TO ` 1,35,54,226/- AG AINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 4,76,96,465/-. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT LD. C IT(A) IGNORED THE FINDINGS ITA NO. 1331/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 2 OF THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES WERE CORRE CTLY ALLOCATED BETWEEN ELIGIBLE AND NON ELIGIBLE UNITS BY RECORDING PROPE R FACTS AND REASONS. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE OU TSET THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN COVERED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT IN ITS OWN CASES. IN TH IS CONNECTION, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R , IN WHICH IT IS INTERALIA MENTIONED THAT THE FACTS OF THIS YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS TO TWO PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THOSE YEARS THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF KALA-AMB UNIT WAS REDUCED ON THE GROUND THAT MAN UFACTURING, ADMINISTRATIVE AND SELLING EXPENSES HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE LOWER SIDE AS COMPARED WITH THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN BHIWADI UNIT. ALTHOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED SOME RELIEF BUT THE COMMISSIONER HAS FILED SECOND APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS ARE FOLLOWED. IT APPEARS THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED IN EARLIE R YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF DISALLO WANCE TO ` 1,35,54,226/-. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, AND THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS URGED THAT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 1331/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 3 3. IN REPLY, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ALLOCATION OF EX PENSES BETWEEN TWO UNITS IS A MATTER OF FACT, WHICH MAY VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR CONSID ERING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTS OF THIS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. IT IS MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE AFTER, HE REALLOCATED EXPENSES AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AS MENTIONED EARLIER. THEAT LD. CIT DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF LAW IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS BEEN SET REST BY THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 483/2011 DATED 10.3.2011. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE :- IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH AT ORDER, THE CIT(A) WENT INTO THE QUESTION OF ALLOCATION IN DETAIL TAKING NOTE OF EACH AND EVERY HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AND THER EBY MADE THE ALLOCATION RESULTING IN SOME RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE EXERCISE UNDERTAKEN B Y THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE FIND THAT AL THE FACTUAL ASPECTS WHICH ARE NECES SARY FOR THE PURPOSE HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE T WO AUTHORITIES BELOW. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1331/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 4 4.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS DECISION AND THE FA CT THAT THE LD. CIT(DR) HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE CIT(A), THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- [U.B.S. BEDI] [K.G. BANSAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT