Income Tax Officer-(Exemptions), Lucknow V. Unity Technical; Institute Society, Lucknow

ITA 447/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100471 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESS MENT YEAR
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.447 & 449/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 & 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW. VS. M/S UNITY TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SOCIETY, 178/152, B. N. ROAD, GOLAGANJ, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.468 TO 471/LKW/2015 ASSTT. YEARS:2005-06 TO 2008-09 M/S UNITY TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SOCIETY, 178/152, B. N. ROAD, GOLAGANJ, LUCKNOW. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 5(3), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER BENCH: OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS, THERE ARE TWO A PPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2007-08 AND THE REMAINING FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2008-09. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE. REVENUE BY SHRI A. K. SINGH, CIT, D. R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI A. P. SINHA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 05 /10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 / 11 /2015 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE ADDITIONS IN ALL THESE FOUR YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006 -07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ON THE BASIS OF COMPARISON IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE FOUR YEARS AND AS PER REPO RT OF THE D.V.O. IN ALL THESE FOUR YEARS, PART RELIEF WAS ALLOWED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT INSTEAD OF CPWD RATES, UPPWD RATE SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED AND A FURTHER REBATE OF 8% SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-S UPERVISION. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL FOR THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY CIT( A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2007-08 AND SIMILAR APPEALS OF THE REVE NUE FOR REMAINING TWO YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2008-09 WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 3. IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHE R APPEAL BEFORE US IN WHICH IT IS CONTENDED THAT REBATE OF 10% SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION INSTEAD OF 8% ALLOWED BY CIT(A). 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES I.E. THE ISSUE REGARDING ADOPTION OF UPPWD R ATES AS AGAINST CPPWD RATES AND ALLOWABILITY OF REBATE OF 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE TRIBUN AL ORDER IN THE CASE OF DR. AMAR SINGH AND ANITA SINGH IN I.T.A. NOS.223 & 224/LKW/2011 DATED 22/11/2013. HE SUBMITTED COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORD ER. REGARDING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE IN RESPECT OF ADOPTION OF UPPWD RATES AS AGAINST CPPWD RATES, LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESS EE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 17 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. REGARD ING ALLOWING OF REBATE OF 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION, HE DRAWN OUR AT TENTION TO PARA 19 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. 3 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE CASE OF DR. AMAR SINGH (SUPRA), THESE TWO ISSUES WERE CO NSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS PER PARA 17, IT WAS HELD BY TH E TRIBUNAL THAT THE RATE PRESCRIBED BY UPPWD SHOULD BE APPLIED WHILE CALCULA TING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. REGARDING REBATE ON ACCO UNT OF SELF- SUPERVISION, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CA SE THAT REBATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED @ 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION. THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS ON TWO COUNTS THAT UPPWD RATE SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS AGAINST CPPWD RATES AND ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION, CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED REBATE OF 8%. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THERE I S NO MERIT IN BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. REGARDING THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE HOLD BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TR IBUNAL ORDER THAT REBATE ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 10% AS AGAINST 8% ALLOWED BY CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED WHEREAS ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. (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:17/11/2015 *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