ACIT, Muzaffarnagar V. M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

ITA 3616/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8101 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVENDER K CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: V K TULSHAN
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA : VICE PRESIDENT; A ND SRHI D.R. SINGH : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3616/DEL/08 ASSTT. YRS: 2005-06 ACIT CIRCLE-2, VS. M/S DOABA ROLLING MILLS (P) L TD. MUZAFFARNAGAR MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN/GIR NO. AABCD0822F ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEVENDER K. CHAND DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. TULSHAN CA O R D E R PER G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, V.P: THIS APPEAL, BY THE REVENUE , ARISES OUT OF THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)- MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 24-9-2008 RELATING TO A.Y. 2005 -06. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), MUZAFFARNAGAR, ERRE D IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,02,67,255/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN A SI MILAR CASE OF M/S ASHIRWAD STEEL ALLOYS (P) LTD. FOR A.Y. 2005 -06 THE LD. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR HELD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE OTHER INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 4739/DEL/07 FOR A.Y. 2004-05, WHEREIN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH B VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 6-4-2009 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF TRIBUNALS ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RE CORD. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES A ND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE IT AT IN A.Y. 2004-05 (SUPRA) HAS FOLLOWED ITS OWN ORDER DATED 31-3-2002 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1995-96 IN ITA NO. 2101/DEL/2000, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4 AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN AS STT. YEAR 1994-95, THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS NIL AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED LOSSES. ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TO ACT AS COMMISSION AGENT TO DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES APART FROM MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF M.S. INGOTS. T HE PREMIUM CHARGES RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF ADVANCE LICENSE, NO DOUBT, IS IN NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM VENDORS FOR PROCUREMENT OF [PLANT AND MACHINERY IS ALSO IN NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREAT ED AS BUSINESS. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO W HY THE COMMISSION WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME UNDER THE HE AD OTHER SOURCES. SINCE THE COMMISSION RECEIVED IS IN LINE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IT HAS BEEN ASS ESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS, LD. CIT(A) WAS JU STIFIED IN 3 HOLDING THAT COMMISSION WAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINE SS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION BEING SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE . ACCORDINGLY, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 7-7-2009. (D.R. SINGH ) ( G.E. VEERABHADRAP PA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 07-07-2009. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR