DCIT, Dehradun V. Kumar Auto Sales, Dehradun

ITA 1996/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7091 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH GUPTA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI D BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND S HRI KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1996 /DEL/201 5 [A.Y 20 11 - 12 ] THE D.C. I.T . VS. M/S KUMAR AUTO SALES CIRCLE - 1 PLOT NO. D - 6, USIDC INDUSTRIES DEHRADUN DEHRADUN PAN : AAHFK 2427 N [APPELLANT] [ RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 1 7. 0 7 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 8 .0 7 .2018 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH GUPTA, FCA REVENUE BY : S HRI AMIT JAIN , SR. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, T HIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] , DEHRADUN DATED 0 6 . 0 1 .201 5 PERTAINING TO A.Y 20 1 1 - 1 2 . 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'] IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE 2 ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURI NG AS ESTABLISHED BY THE AO. 3. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT F ALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURING AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER A.Y VIDE ORDER DATED 27.08.20 13 IN ITA NO. 7505/MUM /2010 AND 4762/MUM/2012 FOR A.Y 2009 - 10 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE AO RUBBISHED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM CANNOT BE A LLOWED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 709 & 972 OF 2014 AND POINTED OUT THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y S 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT A.Y I.E. 2014 - 15, THE AO HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT OF EARLIER YEARS. 3 6. T HE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISHING DECISION IN FAVOUR OF T HE REVENUE. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS JUDICIAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON FINDING NO CONTRARY DECISION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT A NO. 1996 /DEL/201 3 IS DISMISSED . THE ORDER IS PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8 .0 7 .2018. SD/ - SD/ - [ KULDIP SINGH] [ N.K. BILLAIYA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 8 T H JU LY , 2018 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 4 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER