Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, Kanpur V. M/s Goldee Masale Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur

ITA 682/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 68223714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY KUMAR GUPTA
• Section: 43B

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.682/LKW/2013 A.Y.: 2006 - 07 A.C.I.T. - 6, LUCKNOW. VS. M/S GOLDEE MASALE PVT. LTD., 51/40, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR. PAN:AAACG6669E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AKSHAY KUMAR GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING 28/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) - II, KANPUR DATED 14/06/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF O F RS.16,29,495/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THESE PAYMENTS ACTUALLY PERTAINED TO F.Y. 2004 - 05 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND SUCH PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN A.Y. 2006 - 07. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE ABOVE RELIEF WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO CONCEAL ITS PURCHASES FROM MANDI TAX 2 AUTHORITIES AND THUS DELIBERATELY AVOIDED MAKING PAYMENT OF TAX WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY DUE. 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A), KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO 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). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,29,495/ - IS IN RESPECT OF MANDI TAX. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT IS ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT U/S 43B OF THE ACT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE L IABILITY IS INCURRED . HENCE, ON THIS ASPECT, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUM AR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 3 /12/2013 *C.L.SINGH 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR