Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68255 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-11-2013
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
01-10-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.603(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AABFI9293C INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. ISHWARI STEEL ROLLING MILLS, WARD 1(1), JAMMU. LANE NO.3, PHASE-II, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH.S.K.BANSAL, ADVOCATE I.T.A. NO.602(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AAFFP4034H DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S. PEE ELL ALLOYS, UNIT-II, CIRCLE-1, SIDO INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.606(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AABFI9293C INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. BALAJEE ROSIN INDUSTR IES, WARD 1(1), JAMMU. ,PHASE-II, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, JAMMU. 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.584(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :ABGFS9266B INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. SATYAM CEMENTS, KATHUA. RAKH JALPAR, KATHUA. . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.583(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AAPFM1897A INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. MAX ELECTRONIC INDUST RIES, WARD 1(2), JAMMU. PHASE-II, BARI BRAHMANA, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, SAMBA, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.582(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AAIFR8256R INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. RAVI CROP SCIENCE, WARD 1(2), JAMMU. LANE NO.4, PHASE-I, INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, SAMBA, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.580(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AAFFV3639M INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. VARDHMAN ALLOYS, 3 WARD 1(3), JAMMU. PHASE-III, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL AREA, GANGYAL JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY:NONE DATE OF HEARING:29/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:29/11/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE SEVEN APPEALS AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 08.07.2013, 18.07.2013, 23.07 .2013,12.07.2013, 23.07.2013, 23,07,2013, 08,07.2013 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS COMMON, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN ALL THE APPEALS EXCEPT VARIATION IN AMOUNTS. THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN ITA NO.6 03(ASR)/2013 WHICH ARE SIMILAR IN OTHER APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,74,528 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T.A CT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY REFUND. 4 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD A NY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE LD. DR AND LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. S.K. BANSAL, ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BE HALF OF M/S. ISHWAR STEEL ROLLING MILLS CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IN DIS PUTE IN ALL THE APPEALS IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V. CIT AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN (2011) 333 I TR 335 (J&K), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED. HOWEVER, I N OTHER APPEALS, NOBODY APPEARED. 3.. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IS SUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS RELATES TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ON EXCISE DUTY REFUND AND IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMI R IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V. CIT AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN (2011 ) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) BY HOLDING THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS TO BE TREATE D AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED. 5 2.1. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO DE CIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF J & K, IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI A LLOYS V. CIT AND ANOTHER (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE D ISMISS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 3. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY T HE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH N OVEMBER., 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29TH NOVEMBER, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ALL THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE ITO WARD 1(1), (1(2), JAMMU & KATHUA 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.
