U.P Electronics Corporation Ltd., Lucknow V. DCIT, Lucknow

ITA 462/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 46223714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

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. 462 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 07 - 08 U.P. ELECTRONICS CORPN. LTD., 10, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU3391H VS. DCIT, RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR, FCA RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA , D. R. DATE OF HEARING 01 /0 7 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 /07 /2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I , LUCKNOW DATED 22 / 03 /20 13 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 20 08 . 2. IN THIS APPEAL , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.1 BECAUSE THE FUNDS PARKED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN BANK FDR WERE GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND WERE TO BE UTILIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION BEING ONLY A TRUSTEE OF THESE FUNDS, THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.8,10,234/ - ON SUCH FUNDS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION. 1.2 BECAUSE THE FUNDS BEING MADE AVAILABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF U.P. ONLY FOR DISBURSEMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES OF UPTRON INDIA LIMITED UNDER THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME (VRS) AND THE GOVE RNMENT HAVING DECIDED THAT THE INTEREST ON SUCH FUNDS COULD NOT BE APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOWARDS ITS INCOME, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF 2 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF TREATING SUCH INTEREST OF RS.8,10,234/ - A S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 1.3 BECAUSE, IN ANY CASE, THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT HAVING BEEN SEIZED/ ATTACHED BY THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVING NO CONTROL OVER THESE FUNDS, THE INTEREST ON SUCH FUNDS OF RS.8,10,234/ - OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN CLEAR DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.5,17,060/ - AND TO ALLOW ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF BON US PAID OF RS.1,666/ - AND GRATUITY PAID OF RS.4,03,389/ - WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT PURSUANT TO GROUND NOS. 5, 6 AND 7 TAKEN IN 1ST APPEAL. 3. BECAUSE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTI CE. 4. ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUND NO. 2 IS NOT PRESSED AND GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ARE GENERAL. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED AND GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION BEING GENERAL IN NATURE. 4. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 IN I.T.A. NO.315/LKW/2011 AND 328/LKW/2012 DATED 07/08/2013. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1 IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE TRIBUNAL 3 DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07. IN THOSE TWO YEARS, THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE - EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT DATED 03/04/80. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE - EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THIS ORDER OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT DATED 03/04/80 AS HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ABOVE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUD ICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 7 /07 /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