ACIT, Panchkula V. The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula

MA 158/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1727 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MA NOS.158 & 159/CHD/2018 IN . / ITA NOS.1269 & 1223/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2013-14 THE A.C.I.T., PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA. THE HARYANA STATE CO - OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA, HARYANA. ./ PAN: AAAJH0022R /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT !' /ASSESSEE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI AMAN PARTHI, # $! % /DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2019 &'()! % /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.03.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE REVENUE BY FILING THE AFORESAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAD SOUGHT RECTIFICATION IN THE CONSOL IDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T. WITH RESPECT TO THE CR OSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IN IT A NO.1269/CHD/2016 AND ITA NO.1223/CHD/2016 RESPECTIV ELY DATED 22.1.2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 . AS PER THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD ERRED IN DISMISSI NG THE MA NO S.158 &159/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 2 APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON ADDITION MADE U/S 80P(2)(E ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), WHEN IT WAS A MATTER COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IN THE APP LICATIONS FILED, THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT HOW THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WAS COVERED IN ITS FAVOUR AS UNDER: A) IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 , THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE IT AT AND THE HON'BLE ITAT PASSED THE ORDER ON 21.06.2013 , AND R EFERRED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE THEN AO PASSED THE ORDER ON 17.03.2015 AND UPHEL D THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, AGA INST WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FURTHER APPEAL ON THIS IS SUE. B) IN THE A. Y. 2010-11, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITA T AND THE HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH REF ERRED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN R ESPONSE TO THIS, THE THEN AO PASSED THE ORDER ON 28.10.2015 AND UPHELD ADDITION MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORD ER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSES DID NOT FILE FURTHER APPE AL ON THIS ISSUE. C) IN THE A.Y. 2011-12, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE HON'BLE ITAT ALSO DI SMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE, IT IS A COVERED MATTER IN FAVOR OF REVENUE. 2. IN EFFECT, THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT IDENTI CAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING ASSE SSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11 HAD BEEN REFERRED BACK TO THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, W HILE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DISMISSED BOTH BY THE CIT(A) AND THE I.T.A.T. AND, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE R EVENUE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. THAT THE I.T.A.T. IN THE IM PUGNED CROSS APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THEREFORE, HAD ERRED IN DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOU R OF THE MA NO S.158 &159/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 3 ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. 3. THE LD. DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE U S REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER AS POIN TED OUT BY THE REVENUE SINCE THE I.T.A.T. HAD CONSIDERED TH E ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS A ND AFTER DOING SO HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD BEEN NOTED IN THE ORDER THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT, HAD BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING THAT ONL Y RENT RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT THE WAREHOUSING FACILITY TO OUTSIDERS WAS ALLOWABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT, WHILE RENTAL INCOME EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF ITS O WN ACTIVITY OF PURCHASING AND SELLING COMMODITIES AND STORING THE GOODS IN THE WAREHOUSE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE F OR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT. THAT THE I.T.A. T. HAD NOTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS THE ISSUE, THEREF ORE, HAD BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. TO ADJUDICATE THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT IN T HE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHILE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE I.T.A.T. HAD NOTED THA T THE CIT(A) HAD HIMSELF VERIFIED THIS FACT AND HAD DETER MINED MA NO S.158 &159/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 4 QUANTUM OF RENTAL INCOME ALLOWABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT WHICH FACT HAD NOT BEEN CONTRO VERTED BY THE REVENUE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD BEEN DI SMISSED BY THE I.T.A.T. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FIND INGS OF THE ITAT AT PARA 22 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE INCOME EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF STORAGE OF GOODS PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO RENTAL INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS), WE FIND HAS POINTED OUT THAT FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDGMENT THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.205/CHD/2013 DATED 21.6.2013 HAD AFTER ACCEPTING THIS FACT HELD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME EARNED FROM STORAGE OF GOODS, IT IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME ON ACCOUNT OF HIRING CHARGES BY LETTING OUT ITS GODOWN TO OUTSIDERS. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.6,98,01,113/- AND AFTER VERIFYING THE SAME FOUND TO BE CORRECT. NO INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO US BY THE LD. DR. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WHO, WE HOLD, HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME EARNED AMOUNTING TO RS.6,98,01,113/- FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENTED THAT, TH EREFORE, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. WHI CH HAD FOUND THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE CI T(A) MA NO S.158 &159/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 5 HIMSELF IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND, THEREFORE, THERE WERE NO REQUIREMENT TO RESTOR E BACK THE MATTER TO THE A.O. AS DONE IN THE PRECEDING YEA RS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFUL LY AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS SOUG HT TO BE RECTIFIED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PR ESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THE ISSUE OF THE ALLOWAB ILITY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WE FIND, HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE L IGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, AFTER NOTING THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HIMSELF HAD VERIFIED THE COMPONENT OF RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT, AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT. THE I.T.A.T. HAD ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT I N THE EARLIER YEARS THIS ISSUE HAD BEEN SENT BACK TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION AND ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE F INDINGS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR, SINCE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE VERIFICATION HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE B Y THE CIT(A) HIMSELF WHICH WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIN DINGS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE W AS DISMISSED ON THIS COUNT. THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE, T HEREFORE, THAT THE ISSUE NEEDED TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE A. O. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE EARLIE R YEARS, THEREFORE, IS BASED ON INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF FA CTS. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS CLEARLY NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. AND BOTH THE MA NO S.158 &159/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 6 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE , THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $ % &' (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER '( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *# /DATED: 8 TH MARCH, 2019 * ' * '*!+,-,! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # .! / CIT 4. # .! ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,/0 !1 , % 1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 046$ / GUARD FILE '* # / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR