The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar. V. Sh. Janak Raj Mahajan, Amritsar.

ITA 424/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 42420914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: K R JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 424(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000-01 PAN :AASPM2919C THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. JANAK RAJ MAHAJAN, WARD 5(2), AMRITSAR. AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. K.R. JAIN, ADV. DATE OF HEARING:06/06/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:07/06/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 19.05.2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20, 99,887/-. 2. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS N OT APPRECIATED THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS 2 ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY HAS BEEN PAID B Y HIM. BUT LATER ON THE ASSESSEE PREPARED PENALTY ACCOUNT AND TRANSFERRED TO SUPPLIERS ACCOUNT. 4. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR MO RE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT DISPUT ED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL DATED 07/05/2012 IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR VS. M/S. GANE SH RICE MILLS, KHEM KARAN, IN ITA NO.464(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09. HE FURTHER REQUESTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 07/05/2012 (SUPRA), THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY SIMILAR ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, DATED 07.05.2012 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT , CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR VS. M/S. GANESH RICE MILLS, KHEM KARAN, IN ITA NO.464(A SR)/2011 (SUPRA). 3 THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 29.12.2010 HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. AS PER EXPLANATION AVAILABLE AT PAGE 2 OF AOS ORDER, THE BONUS HAS BEEN PAID ON THE PADDY WHICH IS OF REQUIR ED QUALITY AS PER ANNEXURE A OF THE SAID EXPLANATION. AS PER EXPLANA TION-III ON CERTAIN PURCHASES HIGHER RATE IS PAID WITH CLEAR UN DERSTANDING FROM THE SELLER THAT NO BONUS WILL BE PAID. IN OTHER WOR DS PURCHASE RATE IS INCLUSIVE OF BONUS AS PER ANNEXURE-B OF THE EXPLANA TION. IN CASE OF INFERIOR QUALITY OF PADDY, NO BONUS IS PAID. MOREOV ER, PURCHASES HAD BEEN MADE OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF AMRITSAR AS PER E XPLANATION AND ANNEXURE-C. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AFFIDA VIT THAT NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AMOUNTING T O RS.30,02,614/- TO FARMERS. THE SAID AFFIDAVIT IS A VAILABLE AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY SH. K.R. J AIN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH BONUS AS A MATTER OF FAC T IS A SUBSIDY BY THE PUNJAB GOVT. WHICH IS PAID BY THE PUNJAB GOVT. AND SUCH AMOUNT IS TAKEN FROM THE GOVT. AND GIVEN TO THE FARMERS. IN A NY CASE, SUCH SUBSIDY IN THE FORM OF BONUS CANNOT BE ANY EXPENDIT URE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT S UCH ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, THE EXPENDITURE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS IS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. 5.1. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND THE A FORESAID FINDINGS GIVEN BY THIS BENCH IN ITA NO.464(ASR)/2011 (SUPRA), WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED BY THIS BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DAT ED 07.05.2012. 4 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL, THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I N ITA NO.424(ASR)/2011 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH JUNE, 2012 SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7TH JUNE, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. JANAK RAJ MAHAJAN, AMRITSAR. 2. THE ITO WARD 5(2), ASR. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.