Shiva Automobiles (Auto Division), Aligarh V. I.T.O., Ward-2, Aligarh

ITA 372/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6917 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, SMC, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.372, 373, 374 & 375/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005 -06 RESPECTIVELY SHIVA AUTOMOBILES (AUTO DIVISION) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARAO DUBEY, WARD-2, ALIGARH. G.T. ROAD, ALIGARH. (PAN: AADFS 4944 G). ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE FOUR APPEALS AGAINST T HE DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2002-03 TO 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL, EXCEPT FOR AMOUNTS I N DISPUTE, THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.372/AGR/2011 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002-03 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- ITA NOS.372 TO 375/AGR/2011 A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2005-06 2 GROUNDS IN ITA NO.372/AGR/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 1. ON THE FACTS, IN LAW AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ARE BAD. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,24,178 IS TO BE MADE U/S 36(1) (III) ON THE GROUND OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES BY BOOK ENTRY , BEING NON GENUINE AND ALTERNATIVES, BEING NON BUSINESS TRANSA CTIONS. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTERES T OF ` 2,24,178 PAID FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 4. THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT ALLOWING PARTNERS REMUNERATION OUT OF ADDITION S MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O. 5. THAT INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234 C AND 234D OUGHT TO HAVE NOT CHARGED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, TO AMEND, TO ALTER AND/OR TO WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUN DS OF APPEALS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RE IS ONE ADDITIONAL GROUND ALSO IN ITA NO.375/AGR/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.E. GROUND NO.5 WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- (5) THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF PRIOR PERIOD EX PENSES OF ` 36,050/-. 4. SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, C.A., LD. COUNSEL APPEARED FO R THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE SMC BE NCH OF I.T.A.T., AGRA IN ITA NOS.372 TO 375/AGR/2011 A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2005-06 3 ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.79/AGR/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TITLED AS SHIVA AUTOMOBILES (AUTO DIVISION), G.T. R OAD, ALIGARH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ALIGARH AND THIS BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 26 TH APRIL, 2011 HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER/DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE ALL AHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.101 OF 2010 UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIV A AUTOMOBILES (AUTO DIVISION), G.T. ROAD, ALIGARH THROUGH ITS PARTNER S HALABH MITTAL VS. CIT, ALIGARH AND OTHERS. HE REQUESTED THAT THE SAME ORDER MAY B E PASSED IN THESE APPEALS ALSO. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ITA NO.375/AGR/2011 REGARDING ADDITION OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO ` 36,050/-, WHICH MAY ALSO BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER LAW AFTER HEARING THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT PASSED ANY SPE AKING ORDER ON THE ADDITION OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF ` 36,050/-. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NOS.372 TO 375/AGR/2011 A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2005-06 4 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ESPECIALLY THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THIS BENCH IN THE ASSES SEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS:- 5. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST MADE BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGREE D BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY PURPOSE TO KEEP THE MATTER P ENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED FOR SETT ING ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND TO DECIDE THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE ORDER/DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REQUE STS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE CIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER/DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.101 OF 2010 UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHIVA AUTOMOBILES (AUTO DIVISION), G.T. ROAD, ALIGARH THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHALABH MITTAL VS. CIT, ALIGARH AND OTHERS. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 26 TH APRIL, 2011 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.79/AGR/2011 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 (SUPRA), THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ITA NOS.372 TO 375/AGR/2011 A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2005-06 5 9. AS REGARDS TO THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ITA NO.375/AGR/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 REG ARDING ADDITION OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF ` 36,050/-, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT PASSED ANY SPEAKING ORDER ON TH E SAME, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.5 OF ITA NO.375/AGR/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE CIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE OTHER ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.12.2011) SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 28 TH DECEMBER, 2011 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT(APPEALS) CO NCERNED/D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY