ACIT, Ludhiana V. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd., Ludhiana

MA 48/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3404 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 48/CHD/2015 ITA NO. 897/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE ACIT, CIRCLE -7, VS M/S NAHAR INDUSTR IAL ENTERPRISES LTD., LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO.AACCN3563A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NAVDEEP SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 07.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.08.2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION THE REVENUE HAS SOUG HT RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 897/ CHD/2012. 2. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE APPLICATION AND POINT ED OUT THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL-II) VS FEDRAL-MOGUL GOOTZE (INDIA) LIMITED IN ITA NO. 1179/2010 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EXPENDITURE FOUN D DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A CAN BE ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROF ITS U/S 115JB, THEREFORE, ERROR SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. FURTHER, ON A QUERY BY THE BENCH HE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS NOT CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEA L. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT PERUSAL OF THE MISC. APPLICATION WOULD SHOW THAT RE VENUE HAS MERELY RAISED A GROUND AND NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2 FURTHER, THE DECISION NOW BEING RELIED BY THE REVEN UE WAS NEVER QUOTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEA L. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE DO NO T FIND ANY FORCE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY THE DECISI ON NOW BEING RELIED BY REVENUE WAS NEVER REFERRED DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING OF THE APPEAL. MOREOVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORD ER IN ITA NO. 870/CHD/2013 WHERE THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THAT DECISION; THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, I N OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDING LY THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/08/2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 7 TH AUGUST, 2015 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR