ACIT, Circle - 3, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Himgiri Castings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 361/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62139 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S MONDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND AGARWAL
• Section: 260A; 80IB

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! , ) [BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] # # # # / I.T.A NOS. 360 & 361/KOL/2012 '$% &' '$% &' '$% &' '$% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. HI MGIRI CASTINGS PVT. LTD. CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA. (PAN: AAACH7559J) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+)*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A. S. MONDAL FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING: 02.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.07.2012 , / ORDER IMMEDIATELY UPON CONCLUSION OF HEARING OF THIS APPE AL ON 2ND JULY, 2012, THE BENCH PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 2ND JULY, 2012 THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT. REASONED ORDER TO FOLLOW. (APPEAL NO.361/K/2012). IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE, THE REASONED ORDER IS NOW SET OUT AS FOLLOWS: PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' !, , , , ) BOTH THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF S EPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-I, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 593/594/CIT(A)-I/CIR-3/09-10 DATED 20.12 .2011. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA U/S.143(3)/147 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 V IDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 29.12.2009. 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF R EVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE A CT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASOMNABLE CAUS E FOR NON-FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. FOR THIS, RE VENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICLLY WORDED GROUNDS EXCEPT THE QUANTUM AND THE GROUND RAISED IN AY 2003 -04 READS AS UNDER: 1.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.5,79,320/- FOR THE CLA IM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IV OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASON FOR NON FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. MOREOVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED FURTHER APPE AL U/S. 260A OF THE I. T.ACT,1961 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT. THEREFORE, FURTHER APPEAL U/S. 260A IS SUGGESTED ON THE SAME GROUND. 2 ITA 360&361/K/2012 HIMGIRI CASTINGS PVT. LTD. A.YS. 03-04 & 04-05 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES CONCEDED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN IT A NOS. 338 & 339/K/2008 FOR AY 1999- 2000 AND 2000-2001 AND ITA NO. 1382/K/2008, AY 2005 -06 DATED 05.06.2009, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 19. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUHRNISSIONS O F THE LD. REPRCSENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE TLIROUGH THE CASES CITED BY THE LD. A.R. N SUPPORT OF HIS SUHRNISSION . WE AGREE THAT THC HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF PANAMA C HEMICAL WORKS (SUPRA) THAT FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 1OCCB DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDNGS AINOUNTS TO SUFFCIENT COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 801 (7) AND, THEREFORE, TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING CLAIM FOR DCDUCTION UNDER SCC TION 80-1 TO THE ASSCSSEE. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD IN THE CASE OF M INES (SUPRA) THAT THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8OHHC CANNOT BE DENIED MERE LY BECAUSE THE AUDIT REPORT WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. IT WAS HELD THAT I T IS SUFFICIENT F THE SAID REPORT IS FILED BEFORE CORNPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND MERELY ON THAT GROUND THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED. THE SAME VIEW HAS ALSO HEEN TAKEN BY THE HO NBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO B Y THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMCO INTERNATIONAL (SUPR A). LN VIEW OF TLTE AHOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A). ACC ORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A BY REJECTING THE GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 OF THE APP EAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) BY REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- , ! ! ! ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! , (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( - - - -) )) ) DATED: 2ND JULY, 2012 ./ '$01 '2 JD.(SR.P.S.) , 3 ''4 54&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA. 2 +)* / RESPONDENT M/S. HIMGIRI CASTINGS PVT. LTD., 606 , CENGTRAL PLAZA, 2/6, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020. 3 . ',$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. ',$ / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . ='> '$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA +4 '/ TRUE COPY, ,$/ BY ORDER, ! 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .