Vegepro Foods & Feeds Ltd., Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

MA 124/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3289 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTAVA SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP MEHROTRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 1 24 & 128 /LKW/20 1 4 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 7 47 & 748 / LKW/201 3 ) A.YRS.: 200 3 04 & 2004 05 M/S VEGPRO FOODS & FEEDS LI MITED , C/O MEHROTRA PRADEEP & CO. , 37/17, ROLAND COMPLEX , THE MALL, KANPUR . PAN: AA AC CV4548F VS D CIT 6 , KANPUR . (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) A PPLICANT BY SHRI PRADEEP MEHROTRA , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA , SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING 26 / 0 6 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 /0 7 /201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE T RIBUNAL ORDER . 2. ALTHOUGH IN THE M.A., VARIOUS CONTENTIONS ARE RAISED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE IFR WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ADDITION TO ALLEGED NON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL FACTS, IN COURSE OF HEARING, ONLY THIS SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BASIS OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS THIS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE ASSETS READY FOR USE BUT IT IS NOT CORRECT SINCE AS PER PAGE 92 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.09 LACS WAS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SALARIES, WAGES AND B ONUS. HE SUBMITTED THAT HAT SINCE THIS FACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY T HE TRIBUNAL, IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND IT SHOULD BE [ 2 ] RECTIFIED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY CO NSIDERED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BIFR ORDER AND IT IS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SINCE THE COMPANY HAS GONE INTO LIQUIDATION AS NOTED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN ORDER DATED 02.08.2011 IN MCA NO. 1 OF 2010, THESE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN BI FR PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT RELEVANT. MOREOVER, MERE SPENDING OF RS. 2.09 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SALARIES, WAGES AND BONUS DOES NOT ESTABLISH THIS FACT THAT THE ASSETS WERE KEPT READY FOR USE. THIS IS ALSO A FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT NO EXPENSE WAS INCURRED FOR SECURITY. NO MISTAKE IS POINTED OUT IN THIS FINDING. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE , IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSETS WERE KEPT READY FOR USE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CALLING FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 254 (2). 4 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATION S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2 3 /0 7 /201 5 COPY OF THE O RDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR