M/s. Bright Enterprises, P.Ltd, Jalandhar V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Jalandhar

ITA 246/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 24620914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 246(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAN: AAACB9469K M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS. THE ASSIST ANT COMMISSIONER NEW ADDRESS: MBD HOUSE, OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -IV, RAILWAY ROAD, JALANDHAR JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 20.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.01.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JA LANDHAR, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 12,29,357/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON FDRS WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. HENCE IS CO NTESTED. II. THAT THE AUTHORITY BELOW HAS GONE WRONG IN TREATING THE FDRS PURCHASED FROM THE SURPLUS MONEY DEPOSITED WITH THE BANK WITHOUT ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATION. III. THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN PROPER CON TEST. 2 I.T.A. NO. 246(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 IV. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITY BELOW I N REGARD TO ADDITIONS AND CAPITALIZATION ARE CONTESTED. THE PRO PER ANALYSIS OF FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO ARRIVE AT THE LEGAL CONCLUSION. V. THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. VI. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE FOR WANT OF PROPER ADJUDICATION. VII. ANY OTHER GROUND PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, LEARN ED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT UNDER THE INSTRUCTION OF HIS CLIENT, HE WANTS TO WITHDRAW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS NOT OPPOSED TH E REQUEST OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATEMENT MADE BY SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE PRESENT APPEA L IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JANUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH JANUARY, 2014 /RK/ 3 I.T.A. NO. 246(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISES(P) LTD. NEW A DDRESS: MBD HOUSE, RAILWAY ROAD, JALANDHAR 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.