Sh. Ramesh Kumar Dudani, Mohali V. DCIT, Mohali

ITA 597/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5294 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: ATUL MANDHAR
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,A BENCH, CHA NDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWL A, JM ITA NO. 597/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI, V DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1), PROP. TECHNICAL PRODUCTS CORP., MOHALI PLOT NO. C-104, INDUSTRIAL AREA, MOHALI PAN: ABBPD-0633J ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ATUL MANDHAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K.SAINI ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 23.2.2001 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CHANDIGARH IS PARTLY DEFECTIVE BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE O RDER OF THE LD. AO WHO HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 80IC(7) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 AND HAS WRONGLY DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,00,000/-. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MISINTERPRETED THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 80IC(7) AND WRONGLY LED TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT SINCE THE UNIT AT THEOG, SHIMLA AND UNIT AT MOHALI ARE OF THE SAME PERSON, THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC(7) ARE ATTRACTED AND HAS ERRED IN REDUCING DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IC OF THE ACT BY RS.14,00,000/-. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHO LDING THE ORDER OF THE LD AO WHO HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE SALE S RATIO IN APPORTIONING THE TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR BOTH U NITS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED FO R BOTH UNITS ARE EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THEM AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO APPORTION THE EXPENSES. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHO LDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WHO HAS WRONGLY APPLIED SALES R ATIO TO APPORTION THE TOTAL EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDES MANUFAC TURING, ADMINISTRATION AND DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS IF BOTH UNITS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCU RRED AND HAS ERRED IN APPORTIONING THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF ITA597/CHD/2011 RAMESH KUMAR DUDAI,MOHALI 2 RS.14,00,000/- TO THE UNIT AT THEOG, SHIMLA WHICH W AS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN UNIT AT MOHALI. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES UNDER APPEAL HAV E ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL BEARING NO. 113/CHD/2010 DATED 30 .03.2011 AND THEREFORE THE PRESENT APPEAL IS INFRUCTUOUS AND LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIV ASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH JULY 2011 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT 5. THE D.R, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH .