Om Bakeries Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-6(2), Kanpur

ITA 681/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100416 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR A K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Section: 147

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.681/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 01 M/S OM BAKERIES (P) LTD., 301, CITY CENTRE, 63/2, THE MALL, KANPUR PAN:AAACO3340C VS. ITO 6 (2), KANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C. A. REVENUE BY DR. A. K. SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 15/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/10/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT (A) I, KANPUR DATED 26.05.2014 FOR A.Y. 2000 01. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS TEN GROUNDS. ONE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED U/S 147 IS NOT VALID. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 12,01,080/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY DISALLOWING PAYMENT OF COMMISSI ON. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUE ON MERIT ABOUT ALLOWABILITY OF COMMISSION IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IN ITA NO. 53/LKW/2007 DATED 17.03.2015 COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGE S 86 TO 92 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT YEAR ALSO, THE DISALLOWANCE 2 WAS ON THIS BASIS AS IN THE PRESENT YEAR THAT THE P AYMENT OF COMMISSION IS TO AFFECT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IN A CONTRACT AWARDED BY PSU OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPP ORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THE ISSUE ON MERIT IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001 02. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS. THEREFORE, W E FIND NO REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION IN THE PRESENT YEAR. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ISSUE ABOUT VAL IDITY OF REASSESSMENT HAS BECOME OF ACADEMIC INTEREST AND THEREFORE, NO A DJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD. SD. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAR ODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED:14/10/2015 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. REGIST RAR