Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. M/s U.P Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 158/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 15823714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI VERMA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH AGARWAL
• Section: 115JB; 154

Judgement Text

1 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.158/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 09 DCIT RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW VS. M/S U.P. JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., 12T FLOOR, SHAKTI BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW 226001. PAN:AAACU4797P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI YOGESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SMT. NIDHI VERMA SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 07/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 4 /08/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) II LUCKNOW DATED 27.11.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008 09. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE CIT (A), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT SECTION 115JB IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 2. THE CIT (A), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN ADJUDICATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). HE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE 2 CASE OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. DCIT AS REPORTED IN 236 CTR 337 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 19 TO 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS JUDGMENT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 762 DATED 18.02.1988 ALSO COPY ON PAGES 17 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS NOT PROPER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT WAS H ELD BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. DCIT (SUPRA) THAT THE FICTION FIXED U/S 115JB CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 762 DATED 18.02.1 988. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THIS BOARD CIRCULAR IS IN RESPECT OF SECTION 115JA BUT SECTION 115JB IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO SECTION 115JA AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE INTERPRETED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) BECAUSE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND NO CONTRARY JUDGMENT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 4 /08/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR