Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur V. M/s Indus Technical Education Society, Kanpur

ITA 37/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 3723714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.37/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 A.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. VS. M/S INDUS TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, A - 1, ROOMA INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANPUR. PAN:AAATI4395L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 25/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 /04/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT ( A) - II, KANPUR DATED 18/10/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,21,759/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS ACCEPTED FROM THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S 13(3)/40A(2)(B) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST @18% WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF INTEREST DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) - LL, KANPUR DATED 18.10.2013 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28.01.2013 TO BE RESTORED. 2 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CIT ( A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE I.T.A.T. DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T. A. NO.296/LKW/2011 AND I.T.A. NO.344 & 411/LKW/2011 DATED 28/05/2013. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT CIT ( A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS AVAILABLE BEFORE US IN THE PAPER BOOK ALSO. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO HOW THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS NOT COVERED BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 1 /04/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR