ACIT, Jaipur V. M/S DIGICONTROLS NORTHERN PVT.LTD, Jaipur

MA 29/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3245 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH GUPTA CA DHK

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM M.A. NO. 29/JP/2012 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 510/JP/2010) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE ACIT CIRCLE- 6 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. DIGICONTROLS NORTHERN PVT. LTD. B-39, GOYAL HOUSE, TRIVENI NAGAR, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AABCD 2916 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI KAILASH MANGAL, JCIT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATISH GUPTA, CA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/06/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 /06/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITAT DATED 23-09-2011 CONTENDING THAT WHIL E DECIDING THE IMPUGNED REVENUE APPEAL, FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY ITAT: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ERRED IN M.A. NO. 29/JP/2012 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6 VS. M/S. DIGICONTROLS NORTHERN (P) LTD. . 2 (II) NOT DECIDING WHETHER THE GOODS WHICH ARE TRANS FERRED TO ITS BRANCHES AT 60% OF MRP IS THE MARKET PRICE A S PER SECTION 80IC(8). (III) NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE OTHER UNIT/BRANCHES MARKETING GOODS WERE INCURRING LOSS OR SHOWING MEAGER PROFIT WHILE THE MANUFACTURING UNIT AT HARIDWAR IS SHOWING PROFIT IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC HAS BEEN CLAIMED . THE CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROFIT OF HARIDWAR UNIT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC AS PER PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 80IA(8). (IV) IN ACCEPTING THE WORKING OF ASSESSEE FOR COMBI NED PROFIT AT 2.23 CRORE WHICH IS COMPLETELY AT VARIANC E WITH ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE CIT (A) ONLY CONSIDERED SALE S FIGURES BUT COMPLETELY OVER LOOKED THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN MAK ING THOSE SALES. THIS MISTAKE BEING APPARENT FROM THE RECORD SHOULD BE RECTIFIED BY ADJUDICATING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 2.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE REVENUE APPEAL BASICALLY RAISED ONLY ONE ISSUE ABOUT SEC. 80IC, TH E ABOVE GROUNDS ARE SUB-GROUNDS OF THE MAIN ISSUE. THE ITAT VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 23-09-2011 HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE KEEPING IN VI EW ALL THE GROUNDS AND THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS RELATING THERETO AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ABOVE SUB-GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAVE AL READY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THIS BENCH OF ITAT BY DECIDIN G THE ENTIRE ISSUE AT PAGES 16 AND 17 OF THE ORDER AND PARTICULARLY OBSER VING AS UNDER:- THESE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE FINDING OF FACT WHICH NEITHER COULD BE CONTROVERTED NOR ANY MATERIA L WAS M.A. NO. 29/JP/2012 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6 VS. M/S. DIGICONTROLS NORTHERN (P) LTD. . 3 BROUGHT ON RECORD TO HOLD OTHERWISE. IF THE DETAIL ED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHICH ARE REPR ODUCED SOMEWHERE ABOVE IN THIS ORDER, ARE TAKEN INTO CONSI DERATION, THEN THE CASE BECOMES CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT IF ASSESSE E COULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE MATERIAL TO ITS BRANCHES THEN IT WOULD HAVE EARNED MORE PROFIT IN THE UNIT IN WHICH DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80IC HAS BEEN CLAIMED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSE E TRANSFERRED THE GOODS AT 60% MRP TO ITS BRANCHES AN D IN THIS WAY THE PROFIT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED IN THE BRANCH IN WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC HAS BE EN REDUCED AND, THEREFORE, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I C HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON A LESSER AMOUNT. THIS ASPECT HAS B EEN EXAMINED BY LD. CIT (A) AND THEN ONLY HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION RIGHTLY. ACCORDINGLY THE ORD ER OF AO WAS REVERSED BY LD. CIT (A). THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED, THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). ACCORDING LY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO MISTAKES AS RAISED IN REVEN UES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WHICH AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE ITAT ORD ER AND IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS ARE PART OF THE COMPOSITE IS SUE ABOUT PART DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THIS BENCH OF ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23-09-2011 HAS DECIDED THE COMPOSIT E ISSUE WHICH INCLUDES THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUB-GROUNDS AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO A PPARENT MISTAKE FROM M.A. NO. 29/JP/2012 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6 VS. M/S. DIGICONTROLS NORTHERN (P) LTD. . 4 RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF IT AT U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (T.R. MEENA) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 12/06/2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 6 ,JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S.DIGICONTROLS NORTHERN(P) LTD. , JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ THE CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (MA NO.29/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR