ITO- 4, BHILAI(CG) V. SHRI SANTOSH GOLECHA, BHILAI(CG)

ITA 153/BIL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0217 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 40A(3); 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 153

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 153/R PR /201 3 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, SMC , RAIPUR [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] ITA NO . 153 / RPR /201 3 AS SESSMENT Y EAR : 20 10 - 11 INCOME TAX OFFICER 4, BHILAI. .APPELLANT VS. SANTOSH GOLECHA , ..... . RESPONDENT 10, HIMALAYA COMPLEX, SUPELA, BHILAI (C.G.) [P AN: A CZPG 6957 H ] APPEARANCES BY: SHITAL VERMA , FOR THE A PPELLANT S.R. RAO , F OR THE RE SPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 2 2 .06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 21 .0 9.2016 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF TH IS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2013 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) , RAIPUR (C.G.) , IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.43,478/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IN PF/E SI U/S 2(24)(X) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY STATING THAT NO DISTINCTION CAN BE MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION. 2 . WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.3,62,476/ - TO RS.1,17,830/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A C T, 1961 THEREBY GRANTING RELIE F OF RS.2,44,646/ - . ITA NO . 153/R PR /201 3 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 2 OF 3 3 . WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,32,598/ - TO RS.1,45,681/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 57 OF THE I. TAX ACT, 1961 THEREBY GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.28,86,917/ - . 2. SO FAR AS THE FIRST ISSUE IN APPEAL IS CONCERNED, LEARNED REPR ESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HON BLE HP HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NIPSO PLYFABRICS LTD (350 ITR 327) AND THAT THERE IS NO DECISION CONTRARY THERETO BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN THIS V IEW OF THE MATTER, AND FOLLOWING THE NON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT S JUDGMENT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE ACIT VS AURANGABAD HOLIDAY RESORT PVT LTD (118 ITD 1), I UPHOLD THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. AS FOR THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS LPK SECURITIES LTD ( ITA N O. 638/MUM/2012 & 1093/MUM/2012ORDER DATED 17TH MAY, 2013 ) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, ONCE WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ESTEEMED VIEWS OF A HIGHER JUDICIAL FO RUM, THIS DECISION IS NO LONGER RELEVANT. 3. COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, I HAVE NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ONLY IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE AGGREGATE PAYMENTS ON A DAY DO NOT EXCEED THE THRESHO LD LIMIT SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 40A(3). AS THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED, AND AS LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY FACTUAL INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF THE CIT(A), I CONFIRM THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE C IT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE ON THIS ASPECT AS WELL. 4. AS REGARDS THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL, I.E. RESTRICTING THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE TO RS 1,45,681, I FIND THAT, AS LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED ITA NO . 153/R PR /201 3 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 3 OF 3 BY A DIVISION BENCH ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE SAID DIVISION BENCH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH BINDS ME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I CONFIRM T HE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT ALSO AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 TODAY ON 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016 . SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2016 . PBN/* COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR