Income Tax Officer- I, Shahjahanpur V. M/s Ganna Vikas Parishad, Shahjahanpur

ITA 427/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 42723714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K DEY
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

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.427/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, SHAHJAHANPUR. VS. GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD ROZA, SHAHJAHANPUR. PAN:AAAJG1345G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.429/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD ROZA, SHAHJAHANPUR. PAN:AAAJG1345G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, SHAHJAHANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.428/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, SHAHJAHANPUR. VS. GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD POWAYAN, SHAHJAHANPUR. PAN:AAAJG1345G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI P. K. DEY, D.R. ASSESSEE BY NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 0 /01/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THERE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD , R OZA, SHAHJAHANPUR IN I.T.A. NO.427/LKW/2013 AND I.T.A. NO.429/LKW/2013. THE REMAINING APPEAL IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR 2 THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE CASE OF GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD , POWAYAN, SHAHJAHANPUR AND ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO S EPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - BAREILLY DATED 13/03/2013. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE CROSS APPEALS IN THE CASE OF GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD , ROZA, SHAHJAHANPUR I.E. I.T.A. NO.427/LKW/2013 & 429/LKW/2013. WE FIND THAT GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN RESPECT OF SAME A MOUNT OF RS.11,15,957.20. AS PER THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 3. REGARDING THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL, WE FIND T HAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FURNISHED ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT IS THE MAIN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOME OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ARE EXEMPT. WHEN WE EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, W E FIND THAT SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO AND HE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ON PAGE 6 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERE D THE ISSUE, PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEALT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND IN APPEAL MY PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 583/ITO.1./SPN/08 - 09 DATED 25.01 .2012, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME , THEREFORE THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY MY PREDECESSOR IN OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY THE 3 GROUND OF APP EAL TREATING THE SURPLUS OF RS. 11,15,9577 FOR THE YEAR AS INCOME OF THE PARISHAD IS CONFIRMED. 3.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, SAME ISSUE WAS DE CIDED BY CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION. BEFORE US ALSO, NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOT SHOWN TO US THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WAS CHALLENGED AND IF THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED THE SAME WAS REVERSED. IN THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THIS ADDITIO N AND REJECT THE GROUND. 4. NOW WE CONSIDER GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,25,271/ - , WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE AND WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT SAME ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007 HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IF CHALLENGED, WHE THER THE SAME HAS BEEN REVERSED . WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS AS TO WHETHER ROAD DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL 4 NATURE OR REVENUE EXPENDIT URE. NO BASIS IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. WE ALSO FIND THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE COUNCIL DOT NOT ACQUIRE ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY INCURRING THESE EXPENDITURE. THIS SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND FAVOUR WITH LEARNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. SO WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE . GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REV ENUE IS REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REMAINING APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD, POWAYAN, SHAHJAHANPUR IN I.T.A. NO.428/LKW/2013. 9. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS AS UNDER: THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,080/ - . 10. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 11. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE AND WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS REGARDING THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD, PULIA, KHARANJA ETC. IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 5 13. LE ARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WAS REVERSED BY ANY HIGHER FORUM. THIS IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED THAT INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE ON DEVELOPMENT OF ROAD HAS RESULTED INTO ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE ONLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO 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 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 0 T H JANUARY, 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