J.V. Steel Traders, Moga V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Moga

MA 36/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5472 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SH.N. K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. NO. 36/(ASR)/2016 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 377(ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AABFJ7892G [[ J. V. STEEL TRADERS, 618, DEV SAMAJ STREET, MOGA. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, MOGA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 18.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 04.09.2017 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.05.2014 IN ITA NO. 377 (ASR)/2010. 2. NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HOW EVER THROUGH ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HO N'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AND HAD DECIDED THE I SSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF F.C. SONDHI & CO.(INDIA) PVT. LTD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID OR DER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF F.C. SONDHI & CO. (INDIA) P VT. LTD. HAS BEEN RECALLED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31 ST AUG. 2015 IN M.A. NO. 75 AND THEREFORE IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 21.05,2014 BE RECALLED. MA NO. 36 (ASR)/2016 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 377(ASR)/2010 ASST. YEAR:2007-08 2 3. THE LD. DR STATED THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDE R DATED 23.05.2014 WAS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THE RECALLING ORDER IN THE CASE OF F.C. SONDHI & CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER COULD NOT BE RECALLED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH T HE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED AN EXPENDITURE OF 45 LACS AS KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY WHICH THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED. HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVE NUE HAD FILED AN APPEAL AND VIDE GROUND NO. 5 HAD AGITATED AGAINST T HE DELETION OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY. THE H ON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.05.2014 ACCEPTED GROUND NO. 5 R AISED BY REVENUE. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE CASE LAW OF F.C. SONDHI & CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. WHICH IS APPARENT FROM PAGE 17 OF THE SAID ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE IN THE CASE OF M/S. F.C. SONDHI & CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT RANGE-1, JALANDHAR, (SUP RA) IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT GROUND AND ACCORDINGLY GR OUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF F. C. SONDHI & CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN RECALLED VIDE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL DATED 31 ST AUG. 2015 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS RECALLED THE ISSUE RELATING TO EXPENSES OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY. THE RELEVANT P ARAGRAPH FOR RECALLING OF SUCH ORDER IS REPRODUCED PARA 19: 19. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE ORDER DATED 21 ST APRIL, 2014 FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADJUDICATING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE T O THE EFFECT THAT, ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE IRDA CIRCULARS HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY IN DECIDING MA NO. 36 (ASR)/2016 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 377(ASR)/2010 ASST. YEAR:2007-08 3 WHETHER THE PREMIUM ON THE INSURANCE POLICIES PAID ARE COVERED BY THE SCOPE OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY UNDER SECTION 10 (10D) OF THE ACT, AND FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID ADJUDICATING. WE HAVE NOTED THAT AN EARLIER DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION VS. ADDITIONAL CIT [(20140 151 ITD 470 (MUM)], WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DISPOSING OF TH E MATTER, AS THE SAID ORDER, THOUGH PASSED EARLIER, WAS NOT IN PUBLIC DOM AIN BY THAT POINT OF TIME. NOW THAT THE MATTER IS GOING BACK TO THE TRIB UNAL FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS DECISION WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.05.2014 R ELATING TO ISSUE OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ONLY BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF F.C. SONDHI & CO. (INDIA) PV T. LTD. AND WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN RECALLED, THEREFORE THE ORDER OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 5 IS RECALLED AN D THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL RELATING TO GROUND NO. 5 ONLY FOR FRESH HEARING AFTER GIVING DUE NOTICE TO PARTIES. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.09. 2017. SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S . KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 04/09/2017 GP/SR./PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER