I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI V. SHRI PRATIKKUMAR SURESHCHANDRA BHOOT, AMRAVATI

ITA 398/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1329 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGNES P THOMAS
• Assessee Lawyers: D S JOGANI
• Keywords: Capital receipt

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 398/NAG/2016. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO.398 /NAG/2016. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, SHRI PRATIKKUMAR SURESHCHANDRA BHOOT. WARD - 1, AMRAVATI. VS. AMRAVATI. PAN AARPB 6840Q. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SMT. AGNES P. THOMAS. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.S. JOGANI. DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 08 - 2016 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND AUGUST, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 3, NAGPUR DATED 04 - 05 - 2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. THE ISSUE RAISED IS AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(APPEALS), NAGPURS DECISION THAT THE SALE TAX INCENTIVE OF RS.53,78,500/ - AVAILED BY ASSESSEE IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO TAX IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 2. AT THE OUTSET IN THIS CASE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ITA NOS. 130 TO 133/NAG/2013 DATED 31 - 07 - 2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE EARLIER YEARS DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED 2 ITA NO. 398/NAG/2016. THE SAME ORDER OF THE ITAT. ACCORDINGLY LEARNED COU NSEL PLEADED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 3. PER CONTRA LEARNED D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ITATS DECISION. HOWEVER, SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE ITAT. 4. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE CITED ABOVE. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS REVE R SED THE SAID DECISION. ACCORDINGLY I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 5. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST,2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 22 ND AUGUST, 2016. 3 ITA NO. 398/NAG/2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI PRATIKKUMAR SURESHCHANDRA BHOOT, PROP. M/S DEOHARI INDUSTRIES, RALLIES PLOT, AMRAVATI - 444601. 2. I.T.O., WARD - 1, AMRAVATI. 3. C.I.T. - (CENTRAQL), NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS), - 3 , NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE.