Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur V. M/s Propene Products Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 809/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4628 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income

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.809/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 M/S PROPENE PRODUCTS LTD., E-10, PANKI INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITE-I, KANPUR. PAN:AAACP8241R VS A.C.I.T.-6, KANPUR. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY 02/03/2016 DATE OF HEARING 18/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-I, KANPUR DATED 30/09/2013 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN AL LOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.7,84,236/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD AND IGNORING THE FACT TH AT THERE WAS ABNORMAL INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE OF POWER & FUEL DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL SALES AND PROD UCTION WAS DECREASED DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE IN COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y . 2003-04. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLO WING THE RELIEF OF RS.7,84,236/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSE E FAILED TO OFFER ANY CONVINCING EXPLANATION REGARDIN G INCREASE IN THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON POWER & FUEL A ND 2 ALSO FAILED TO FILE/ FURNISH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE OR SUPPORTING BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT-OF CERTAIN PUR CHASE OF DIESEL AND LDO. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLO WING THE RELIEF OF RS.84,00,375/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACTS OF THE CASE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF LIABILITY OF TRADE TAX BEFORE FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(1) AND HENCE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SAID CLAIM. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLO WING THE RELIEF OF RS.84,00,375/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT DEFERMENT OF TR ADE TAX LIABILITY WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY VIDE LETTER DATED 19.05.2005 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS , UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO B E RESTORED. 3. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FIRST I SSUE AS PER GROUND NO. 1 & 2 IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN I.T.A. NO.163/LKW/2011 DATED 28/05/2013. HE SUBMITTED COP Y OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 7 TO 10. REG ARDING THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ALSO, BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE SAME TRIBUNAL ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, OUR AT TENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 6.1 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 AND WE FIND THAT THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 1 & 2 IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THER EFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN 3 CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN I.T.A. NO.163/L KW/2011 DATED 28/05/2013. SIMILARLY, THE SECOND ISSUE OF THE REV ENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 3 & 4 IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR O F THE REVENUE AS PER THE SAME TRIBUNAL ORDER AND ON THIS ISSUE, WE REVERSE T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ALLOW GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED:18/03/2016 *SINGH 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. REGISTRAR