M/s L.H Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., Pilibhit V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

MA 151/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6023 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.151/LKW/2015 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 416/LKW/2013 AND C.O. NO.25/LKW/2013] ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2007 - 08 M/S L.H. SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD. CIVIL LINES PILIBHIT V. ACIT RANGE 2 BAREILLY T AN /PAN : AAACL4597L (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP LIC ANT BY: SHRI AKSHAY GUPTA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SMT. ALKA SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 08 12 201 7 DAT E OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 12 201 7 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16/0/2015 IN ITA NO.41/LKW/2013 & C.O. NO.25/LKW/2013 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STATING THAT ONE OF ITS RELEVANT CONTENTIONS AS APPEARING IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED HEREIN WAS NOT CONSIDER ED BY THE CO - ORDINATE ITAT BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE FINAL HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL, THIS SUBMISSION WAS ALREADY THERE, BUT IT WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. K. G UPTA [2010] 327 ITR 267 (ALLD). [ M.A. NO.151/LKW/2015 ] 2 3 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND WE HAVE ALSO METICULOUSLY GONE THROUGH THE ITAT ORDER. WE FIND THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS VERY SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE LD. A.R. OF THE AS SESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BESIDES REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS.. FURTHER , IN THE ITAT ORDER, IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT HAVING CAREFULLY EX AMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DETAILS AVAILABLE, THEREAFTER THE CO - ORDINATE ITAT BENCH HAS PASSED A DETAILED AND SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE. IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE DECISION OF THE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUBSTANTIALLY DISTINGUISHABLE IN FACTS AS COMPARED TO THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE NOT APPLICABLE. 4 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 /12/ 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH DECEMBER , 2017 JJ: 1112 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APP LIC ANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR