DCIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Punjab Information & Communication Technology Corp. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 369/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73459 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K GOYAL
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.369/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF VS M/S PUNJAB INFORMATION & INCOME TAX, COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY CIRCLE 2(1), CORP. LTD., AAYAKAR BHAWAN UDYOG BHAWAN, SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : AABCP-3373K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K.GOYAL DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.01.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DA TED 06.01.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE A CT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. 'WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A), IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,63,188/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF EXCESS RECEIPT OVER EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF LAND. 2. 'WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A), IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.92,080/- MADE ON ACCOUN T OF TREATING THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND/GRO UNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 4. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CITA) BE CA NCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 2 3. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET POINT ED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE IDENTICAL T O THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME ARE COVERED BY THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. 4. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST THE DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS. 7,63,188/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RECEIPT OVER E XPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THO UGH NOTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BUT AS FURTHER APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS.7,63,188/- BEI NG EXCESS OF RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOTMENT OF LAND OVER THE E XPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF LAND. 6. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 791/CHD/2009 R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ORDER D ATED 9.9.2009 AND IN ITA NO. 436/CHD/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.05.2009 AND IN ITA NO. 1153/CHD/20 10 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.11.2010 HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE ISSUE RAI SED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO.L IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE R AISED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTIC E WHICH REQUIRES OUR INTERFERENCE WITH THE DECISION ARRIVED AT BY THE CI T(A). THUS, THE GROUND NO.L RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3 7. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS. 92,080/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE ABO VE SAID EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD UDYOG SAHAYAK EXPENSES. THE EXPENDIT URE WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE ALSO AROSE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 20 06-07 AND 2007-08 (SUPRA) AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOLLOWING EAR LIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE SPECIAL BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PSIDC V DCIT, 102 1TD I (SB) (CHD). WE CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO.2 R AISED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY,2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JANUARY,2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.