K.T.M. India, Panipat V. ACIT Circle Panipat, Panipat

ITA 3063/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8576 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVENDRA SINGH
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.3063/DEL/2008 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH D BEFORE SHRI K.G.BANSAL, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2063 /DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. K T M INDIA, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, ADJ. SECTOR 29, PANIPAT HUDA, PANIPAT (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI DEVENDRA SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREFERRED A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) KARNAL IN APPEAL NO.IT/130/PPT/CIT(A)/KNL/2007-08 DATED 05.08.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI DEVENDRA SINGH, SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS AR HAS FILED A LETTER-DATED 10.07.2009 ALONG WITH FORM NO.8 BEING A DECLARATION U/S 158A(1) OF T HE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE IN THE A PPEAL I.T.A. NO.3063/DEL/2008 2 AS TO WHETHER THE DUTY DRAWBACK RECEIVED IS AN AMOU NT DERIVED AND ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM U/S 80-IB AND TH E ISSUE WHETHER THE DUTY ENTITLEMENT PROHIBIT SCHEME (DEPB) RECEIVED IS AN AMOUNT DERIVED AND ELIGIBLE F OR THE CLAIM U/S 80IB WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ORIENTAL RAG CO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 158A(1) DID NOT APPLY IN SO FAR AS THE APPEAL PENDI NG BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 158A(1), THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT MUST BE AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. IN THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE APPLICATION U/S 158A(1) OF THE ACT WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PROSECUTION. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158A(1) OF THE ACT CLEARLY SH OWS THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT MUST BE ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS MENTIONED IN THE DECLARATION FILED IN FORM NO.8 IS IN THE CASE OF M/ S. I.T.A. NO.3063/DEL/2008 3 ORIENTAL RAG CO. AND IS NOT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECLARATION U/S 158A(1) STANDS REJECTED. 3. FURTHER AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT TAKEN THE NECESSARY ACTION FOR PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FIL ED BY IT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (D EL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L, IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 24 TH JULY 2009. (K.G.BANSAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:24 TH JULY, 2009 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI