Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur V. M/s. Vision Research & Management Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 488/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 48823714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: B P YADAV

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.488/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 A.C.I.T. - 6, KANPUR. VS. M/S VISION RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., 20, CHANAKYA PURI NEW PAC LINE, KANPUR. PAN:AABCV6877C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. DEY, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. P. YADAV, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 09/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 /10/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR, DATED 29/03/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) - I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE SELF ASSESSMENT BASIS WITHOUT CALLING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) - I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS TO ADOPT THE METHOD IS NO T SCIENTIFIC THAN THAT OF ADOPTED BY THE A.O. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) - I KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO 2 SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEA RNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SPECIFIC GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT ALTHOUGH AN ADDITION OF RS.85,49,04 7/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF TRAINING EXPENSES OUT OF WHICH CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED AN ADDITION OF RS.56.06 LAC S AND DELETED THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE BUT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, NO SUCH ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY T HE REVENUE REGARDING DELETION OF THE PART DISALLOWANCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC GROUND, WE CANNOT ADJUDICATE ANY ISSUE REGARDING DELETION OF THE PART DISALLOWANCE. WHEN NO GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED AGAINST DELETION OF THE PART DISALLOWANCE , OTHER GEN ERAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BECOME OF ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY AND THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR ON THE ISSUE S WHICH ARE OF ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS 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: 2 1 /10/2014. *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