M/s Punjab State Coop Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 686/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6530 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S PHANI KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: AMITOZ SINGH KAMBOZ CITA
• Keywords: Question of law; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 80P; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH !, ' # $ . .. . & , '( # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ITA NO. 686/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S PUNJAB STATE CO - OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD., SCO 153- 155, SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH VS THE A C IT , CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH. PAN NO: AAAAP1208Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMITOZ SINGH KAMBOZ, CIT(A) #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI G.S.PHANI KISHORE, CIT-DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2019 '()*! & D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2019 ')/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2018OF CIT(A)-2, CHA NDIGARH ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO IS BAD IN LAW AND IS B EYOND ALL THE CANNONS OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO HOLDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOME ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UN DER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80P(2)(D) TO THE APPELLANT BEING A CO-OPERATIVE SOC IETY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX VS. KRIBHCO 349 ITR 618 AS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO HOLDING RS. 4,76,58,85 5/- AS EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INCOME NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) AS PER RULE 8D IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE METHODS ADOPTED AND CALCULA TIONS DONE ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE RECORD SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 31.10.2018 U/S 158A AND HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD ABIDE BY THE DECISION GIV EN BY THE APEX COURT AND ON THE LAST OCCASION, TIME HAD BEEN GIVEN TO T HE REVENUE. THE ITA 686/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 6 LD. CIT-DR MR. G.S.PHANI KISHORE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITT ED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ANY REPORT OF THE AO. ACCO RDINGLY, NOTICING THE RECORDING OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS AS RECORDED IN THE O RDERSHEET ENTRY DATED 14.11.2018 BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH THE FOLLOWING NO TING WAS READ OUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL : 14.11.18 PRESENT FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI AMITOZ SINGH KAMBOZ, CA PRESENT FOR DEPTT. :SHRI G.S.PHANI KISHORE, CIT- DR LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITE OUR ATTENTION ON APPLICATION DATED 31.10.2018 U/S 158A OF THE ACT. LET THE REPO RT OF THE AO BE CALLED FOR ON THE SAME. CASE IS ADJ TO 16.01.2019. SD/- SD/- (AM) (JM) 2. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2018 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA 1666/CHD/2017 PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN THE AO H AD GIVEN HIS CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS OBJECTION THAT NO FUR THER TIME NEED BE GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT WHERE ON FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE A PEX COURT AND THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION U/S 158A(1) HAD MADE THE FACTS KNOWN TO THE ITAT AND FROM THE READING OF THE REPORT O F THE AO, IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE FACTS WAS DISMISSED WITH THE CAVEAT T HAT THE SAID DECISION IS SUBJECT TO THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT. THE APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WAS MOVED ONLY TO AVOID THE MULTIPLICITY OF APPEALS. ON CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT, LD. CIT-DR WAS REQUIRED TO RESPOND WHETHER THE AO ON SAM E SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NEED TO FILE ANOTHER REPORT. ON CONSIDERING TH E ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE LD. CIT-DR AGREED THAT THE CONSENSUS O F THE AO IS ON RECORD AND IT WOULD ALSO BIND HIM IN 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL PRAYER OF THE ASSE SSEE. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 2013- 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR CONSIDERED IN ITA 1666/CHD/2017 : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING 'OFFICER AS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER ITA 686/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 6 OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH IS BAD IN LAW AND IS BEYOND ALL THE CANNONS OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UPHELD B Y THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH ATTRIBUTING E XPENSES TO THE INCOME WHICH IS ENTITLE TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,63,94,666/- AGAINST THE GROSS INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 14,85,23,410/-BY INCORRECTLY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14-A READ WITH RULE 8-D IS BAD IN LAW AND IS AGAINST THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THIS BEHALF. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DE LETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS FINALLY HEARD. IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER ALLOCA TING EXPENSES U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,63,94,666/- TO THE EARNING O F INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 14,85,23,410/- MAY KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE IN VIEW OF T HE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THIS BEHALF. 4. WE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES HA VE BEEN RECORDED IN THE ORDER: 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO APPLICATION DATED 25 TH MAY,2013 U/S 158A BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY MADE A PR AYER THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID MULTIPLICATION OF APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS TH AT HE WOULD ABIDE BY THE DECISION OF APEX COURT WHERE SLP OF THE ASSESSEE STOOD ADMITTED BY T HE COURT ON SAME FACTS AND SIMILAR ISSUES AS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. MR. D.S.KALYAN CI T -DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SOUGHT TIME TO PLACE ASSESSING OFFICERS RE PORT THEREON. IT WAS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT CONSISTENTLY THE ISSUE IS COVERED A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBMISSIONS, TIME WAS GRANTED. 3. ON THE NEXT DATE, LD. CIT-DR FILING REPORT OF TH E AO DATED 27.06.2018 STATED THAT THE AO HAS NO OBJECTION TO BE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT ON SIMILAR FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. 5. IT IS SEEN THAT CONSIDERING IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN APEX COOPERATIVE SOCIETY DULY REGISTERED UNDE R THE PUNJAB COOP SOCIETIES ACT, 1961. THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSES SEE SOCIETY AS NOTED IS TO ASSIST ITS MEMBER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN PROMOTING PRODUCTI ON, PROCUREMENT, PROCESSING AND MARKETING OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE I S ALSO STATED TO BE PROVIDING FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF DAIRY FARMERS WHO ARE T HE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETIES WHO ARE FURTHER MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO ASSISTING ITS MEMBERS IN ARRANGING CITY SUPPLY OF MILK, MILK PROD UCTS I.E. GHEE, PANEER, CURD, KHEER AND OTHER MILK PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ASSISTING THE FARMERS THROUGH THEIR MEMBERS SOCIETIES IN PROVIDING QUALITY CATTLE FEED THROUGH ITS TWO CATTLE FEED PLANTS IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB. CONSIDERING THE VIEW TAKEN IN 2002-03 ASSESSMENT YEARS, ADDITIONS BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. 4.1. IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), THE FOLLOWING SUBM ISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ACTION OF THE AO : 6.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS :- '4. THAT THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME COMPUTED THE INCOME AND PREPARED A COMPUTATION CHART. THE APPELLANT FILED COMPUTATION CHART ALONG WITH THE AN NUAL ACCOUNTS AND THE AUDIT REPORTS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION CHART REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSES HAD COM PUTED BUSINESS LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS 11,63, 94, 666/- AS COMPUTED IN THE COMPUTATION CHART. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST INCOME FROM OTHER MEMBER COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AMOUNTING TO RS 14,85,23,410/-INCOME FROM THE SALE OF SEED AMOUNTING TO RS 2,65,89,053/-DIVIDEND INCOME RS 4,0 1,460/- INTEREST INCOME ON ITA 686/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 6 FDR RS 7,42,777/- AND INTEREST INCOME RS 3,86,682/- AS PER SCHEDULE-M BESIDES NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS 57,37,775/-. THE BALA NCE INCOME WORKS OUT TO RS 5,96,48,727/- AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE APPELLANT AS PER THE CHART OF COMPUTATION FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME W AS ELIGIBLE FOR RS 77,57,62,468/- AS DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. THE SAID CLAIM HAS BEEN DULY MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RETU RNED INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT NIL, WHICH FACT IS EVID ENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION CHART. 5. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO FILE VARIOUS DETAILS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, WHICH WE RE DULY FILED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO DESIRED TO EXAMINE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE ALSO PRO DUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ADMITTED N THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSE D IN THIS CASE. 6. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE APPELLANT ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) IT IS THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME WHICH AN ASS ESSEE /S ENTITLE TO DEDUCTION AND NOT THE NET INCOME. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DOABA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. 230 ITR PAGE 774 IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SLP FILED AGAINST THIS ORDER HAS A LSO BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND AS SUCH THIS ORD ER HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALTHOUGH REFERRED TO THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BUT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE SAME WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON OR CONTRARY DECISION IN THIS BEHALF. 7. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS ADMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 14,85,23,410/- HAS BEEN RECEIV ED BY THE APPELLANT AS INTEREST ON THE LOANS ADVANCED TO THE MEMBER COOPERATIVE SO CIETIES AS PER ITS BYE LAWS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSME NT HAS ON THE BASIS OF RULE 8D WORKED OUT RS 77,63,94,666/- AS EXPENSES ATTRIBUTAB LE TO THE EARNING OF INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST FROM THE MEMBER COOPERATIVE SOCIETI ES AT RS 14,85,23,470/- BY APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION A S CONTAINED U/S 14-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED RS 77,63,94,66 6/- AS EXPENSES TO EARN THE INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS 14,85,23, 470/-. 8. THAT THE HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. KINGS EXPORT 378 ITR PAGE 100 HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC TION 14A RELATES TO THE EXEMPTION AND NOT DEDUCTION. SINCE IN THE PRESENT C ASE THE DEDUCTION U/S HAS BEEN CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VI TO THE INCOME TAX ACT AS SUCH NO EXPENSES CAN BE ATTRIBUTED IN VIEW OF THE SAID JUDICIAL DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 9. THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE HON'BLE DELHI COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRIBHCO 349 ITR PAGE 618 AS HELD AS UNDER: THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THA T NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE AGAINST INCOME WHICH WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT UN DER THE ACT. THUS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14-A ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT C ASE AS IT IS A CASE OF SPECIAL DEDUCTION U/S 80P AND AS SUCH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 10. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FILED SLP AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE BEFORE THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE SAID SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LEGAL POSITION IN THIS BEHALF THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS NOT CALLED FOR. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AMOUNTING TO RS 77,63,94,666/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE DEL ETED. 11. THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO 548/201 5 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.02.2017 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE IT AT WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8-DEDUCTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 12. THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAS FILED SLP NO 9585 O F 2076 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON INDIA WHERE THE LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ABOVE NOTED ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE SAME IS BEING ENCLOSE D FOR YOUR PERUSAL AND RECORD.' ITA 686/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 5 OF 6 4 .2 THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SAME, CAME TO THE FO LLOWING CONCLUSION: '6.2 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE PERUSED. IT IS SEEN THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2015 OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENC H 'A 1 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 211-12 IN ITA NO. 97/CHD/2015. R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O OF RS. 11,63,94,666/- UNDER SECTION 14A AS PER RULE 8D IS CONFIRMED. GROU ND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 4.3 THE ABOVE CONCLUSION ON FACTS AS PER POSITIO N OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON FACTS, WE NOTICE HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED WHICH TILL DATE HAS NOT BEEN UPSET BY ANY HIGHER FORUM. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE F OLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE APEX COURT : A. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ORDERS OF THE I TAT TO THE EFFECT THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE AGAINST THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT U/S 10 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961? B. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EVEN IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A AND MORE SPECIFICALLY U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? C. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A TO THE D EDUCTION WHICH FORMED PART OF TOTAL INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2 (45) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PRIOR TO THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(D) ARE LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE IN LAW MORE SO WHEN THERE IS A DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX VS. KRIBHCO IN ITA NO. 444 OF 2011 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT A GAINST WHICH THE SLP FILED HAS ALSO BEEN DISMISSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ? D. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN NOT PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX VS. KRIBHCO IN ITA NO.444 OF 2011, MORE SO WHEN SLP FILED BY TH E REVENUE IN THIS HON'BLE COURT WAS ALSO DISMISSED IN LIMINE? E. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECIS ION ENUNCIATED IN ITA NO. 530 OF 2006 DATED 28.03.2011 AGAINST THE PE TITIONER SINCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELH I IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KRIBHCO IN ITA NO. 4 44 OF 2011 DATED 18.07.2012 WAS PASSED LATER IN TIME AND WAS NOT AVA ILABLE THEN? F. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DELHI IN THE CASE OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KRIBHCO IN ITA NO. 444 OF 2011 WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY REF ERRING TO VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IS EXHAUST IVE AND SETTLES THE LAW CORRECTLY ON THE ISSUE EXACTLY THE SAME AS RAISED I N THE PRESENT PETITION. THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED DOES NOT LAY THE CORRECT LAW ON THE ISSUE IN HAND? 5. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 158A(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE REPORT OF THE AO UNDER SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 158A IS AVAILABLE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RELYI NG ON PAST PRECEDENT SUBJECT TO THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT. THE AO, ACCORDINGLY IS DIRECTED TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SE CTION 158A WHEN THE DECISION ON THE QUESTION OF LAW BECOMES FINAL. WITH THE ABOVE OBSE RVATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA 686/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 6 OF 6 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 4. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS, CIRCUMSTAN CES OR POSITION OF LAW, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TAKIN G NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF APPLICATION U/S 158A OF T HE ACT AND THE CONSENT GIVEN THEREUNDER, WHEREBY THE PARTIES ARGUE TO BE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT ON THE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SAID ORDER WAS P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.02.2019. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . & ) ( ! ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) '( #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER + , (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT - 2. THE RESPONDENT - 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR