M/s. Eldecto Sidcul Industrial Park Ltd., V. DCIT, Kanpur

ITA 766/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9105 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.766(LKW.)/2010 A.Y.: 2007-08 M/S. ELDECO SIDCUL INDUSTRIAL PARK LTD. VS. THE DY. CIT VI, 19 & 20,SHRI GURU ANGAD DEVI SHOPPING LUCKNOW. COMPLEX, NAINITAL ROAD, RUDRAPUR, UTTARANCHAL. PAN AABCE6152D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, CIT (D.R.) O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 29.9.2010 RELATING TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY NOTIFIC ATION/APPROVAL U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, APPEA L IS BEING DISMISSED. 2. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APP EAL BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED AL APPROVAL/NOTIFICATIO N WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMEN TS / PAPERS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GETTING THE NOT IFICATION AND 2 THERE WAS NO REJECTION AFTER A LAPSE, CONSIDERABLE TIME AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS / CLAIMS WERE FOUND IN ORDER EXCEPT T HE NOTIFICATION/APPROVAL. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS AO IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON F ACTS AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80IA(4) (IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR RS.302692186.00 TO THE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PAR K. 5. THAT THE REASONS MENTIONED BY LD. CIT (A) AND AO FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED AND AR E BASED ON IMPROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW. THE ASSE SSEE FULFILLED ALL CONDITIONS MENTIONED UNDER THE ACT AN D HENCE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 6. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE IS SUE RELATING TO INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, WITHDRAW OR MODIFY AND GROUND OF APPEAL WITH THE KIND PERMISSION OF YOUR H ONOUR. 3. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.3.2 011. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NO T FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT L AWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. TH IS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBU S JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN V IEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 3 320(DEL.) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., WE TREAT THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.3.20 11. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MARCH 15TH , 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.