Income Tax Officer, Bareilly V. M/s Cane Developement Council, Bareilly

ITA 522/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6557 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• 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.522/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BAREILLY. VS. M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, 173, CIVIL LINES, BAREILLY. PAN:AAALC 0291R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.523/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BAREILLY. VS. M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, MEERGANJ, BAREILLY. PAN:AAALC 0285F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDER S PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A), BAREILLY BOTH DATED 0 3/ 05 /201 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 200 7 IN RESPECT OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES I.E. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, 173, CIV IL LINES, BAREILLY AND CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, MEERGANJ, BAREILLY RESPECTIVELY. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN BOTH THESE APPEALS IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS.3,00,000/ - AS PER BOARDS INSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. K. AGARWAL, C. A. DATE OF HEARING 01/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 6 /05/2014 2 3. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE THAT A LEGAL ISSUE IS INVOLVE D IN BOTH THESE CASES REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(2 0 ) AND THEREFORE, BOARDS INSTRUCTION IS NOT APPLICABLE. 4. IN REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS CONTENTION IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS R EGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.3,73,607/ - AND RS.8,54,320/ - RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES, WHICH IS FACTUAL ISSUE AND NOT A LEGAL ISSUE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND FORCE IN TH E SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE CASES IS FACTUAL ISSUE REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED . THER EFORE , THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION IS APPLICABLE. SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS.3,00,000/ - IN EACH OF THESE CASES, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE 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: 1 6 /05/2014. *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