State Urban Development Agency, Lucknow V. Inocme Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

MA 26/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3305 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PINKI MAHAWAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR

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.26 /LKW/20 15 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.531/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SUDA) NAVCHETNA KENDRA, 10, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW. PAN:AABAS9089F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(3), LUCKNOW. (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SMT. PINKI MAHAWAR, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 24/04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 /06/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATIONS IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 2. THE MISTAKE ALLEGED IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.340 LAC APPEARED ON BOTH THE SIDES OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE, IF THIS AMOUNT IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM UTILIZATION SIDE, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 23/01/2015, THE COR RESPONDING FIGURE HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM RECEIPT SIDE ALSO IN ORDER TO BE EQUITABLE AND THEREFORE, A PROPER DIRECTION SHOULD BE GIVEN. 3. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS. AT THIS JUNCTURE , A Q UERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO [ 2 ] WHETHER THE RECEIPT OF RS.340 LAC WAS INCLUDED IN INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.1002.93 LAC BECAUSE AS PER THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT PAGE NO. 2, THESE TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.140 LAC AND RS.200 LAC ARE APPEARING ON EXPENDITURE SIDE BUT NO CORRESPONDING FIGURE IS APPEARING ON INCOME SIDE. IN REPLY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME IN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE NO. 2, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDING AS ON 31.03.2009 AND AS PER THIS, THERE IS EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE OF RS.1002.93 LAC. IN THE SAME INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, THESE TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.1 4 0 LAC AND RS.200LAC ARE APPEARING ON EXPENDITURE SIDE. ON THE INCOME SIDE, THE INCOME ARE MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF GRANT RECEIPT AND INTEREST RECEIPT. WE ALSO FIND THAT AS PER RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE MISC. A PPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING RECEIPT OF INTEREST OF HEAD OFFICE ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.166.49 LAC AND THE SAME IS APPEARING AS INCOME IN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT ALSO. REGARDING THE GRANT RECEIPT, WE FIND THAT IN RECEIPT & P AYMENT ACCOU NT, THE AMOUNT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS.46339.88 LAC WHEREAS IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS 1631.31 LAC ONLY AND HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE FIGURES IN RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT REGARDING RECEIPTS AND FIGURES IN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT REGARDING INCOME ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INCOME AS PER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND SINCE , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW THAT THESE TWO RECEIP TS OF [ 3 ] RS.140 LAC AND RS.200LAC APPEARING ON RECEIPT SIDE OF RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT IS INCLUDED IN INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. THE REFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE NO APPARENT MISTAKE COULD BE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MI SC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS 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 2 /06/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR