Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. M/s Motor & General Sales Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 781/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 78123714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: J J MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

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.781/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 JT. CIT, RANGE IV LUCKNOW V. M/S MOTOR & GENERAL SALES LIMITED 11, M.G. MARG LUCKNOW PAN/PAN:AACCM4306J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.782/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 JT. CIT, RANGE IV LUCKNOW V. M/S MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD. 11, M.G. MARG LUCKNOW PAN/PAN:AACCM5754E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. K. C. MEENA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. J. J. MEHROTRA, C.A. DATE OF HEARING: 20 11 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 11 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN I.T.A. NO. 781/LKW/2013 IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. :- 2 -: 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT VS. SHRI. DURGESH RAI, KANPUR IN I.T.A. NO. 514/LKW/2013, IN WHICH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED AS THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED THEREIN WAS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 3. IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 268A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1999. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A READ AS UNDER:- 268A. (1) THE BOARD MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, ISSUE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS TO OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES, FIXING SUCH MONETARY LIMITS AS IT MAY DEEM FIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING FILING OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE BY ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. (2) WHERE, IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT SHALL NOT PRECLUDE SUCH AUTHORITY FROM FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF (A)THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR; OR (B) ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT NO APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OR INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR :- 3 -: AN ASSESSEE, BEING A PARTY IN ANY APPEAL OR REFERENCE, TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE IN ANY CASE. (4) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR COURT, HEARING SUCH APPEAL OR REFERENCE, SHALL HAVE REGARD TO THE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE WAS FILED OR NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF ANY CASE. (5) EVERY ORDER, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE BOARD FIXING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3) AND (4) SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY.] 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF THE ACT, SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. WE, ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.11.2014 IN I.T.A. NO. 514/LKW/2013 IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT VS. SHRI. DURGESH RAI, KANPUR, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO. 782/LKW/2013: 5. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN :- 4 -: LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,21,840/- ON STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,45,000/- ON GENERAL CHARGES. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS 2,50,000/- ON TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS 4,60,099/- DUE TO THEFT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3,37,357/- ON BALANCE WRITTEN OFF. 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON ALL THE ISSUES, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AD HOC BASIS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS WHICH WERE RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NO INFIRMITY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,37,357/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE DEBTS WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1) AND 36(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND SINCE THE DEBT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). :- 5 -: SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 JJ:2511 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR