M/s Lancer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

MA 63/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7505 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH NAYYAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.63 /CHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.534/CHD/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) LANCER PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., VS. THE ADDL.C. I.T., CHANDIGARH. RANGE III, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAAFL4537H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARISH NAYYAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2012 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ITA NO.534/CHD/2011 DATED 24.8.2011 RELATING TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER : 6. THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH WHILE PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO DEBITING THE SALARY AND ALLOWANCES OF RS.17.22 LACS TO BADDI UNIT AND RS.161823 TO PANCHKULA UNIT. 7. THAT IN PAR NO.10 OF THE HON'BLE ITAT ORDER DATED 24.8.2011 IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SAID CLAIM WAS FURNISHED. 8. THAT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A PERSON WISE DETAILS OF SALARY CHARGED TO BADDI ACCOUNT WAS DULY FURNISHED AND WORK PROFILE OF EACH OF THE PERSON WA S DULY EXPLAINED. 9. THAT SINCE THE APPEAL HAS BEEN REJECTED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED, AND WHEREAS SIT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAI LS 2 WERE DULY FURNISHED AND ALSO THE SAME WERE EXPLAINED, THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE BENCH ARE NO T IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACTS ON RECORD AND IN OUR HUMBLE SUBMISSION SUFFER FROM A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD AND DESERVE TO BE RECTIFIED BY PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OF INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 10 HAD HELD AS UNDER : 10. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. ONCE THE PANCHKULA UNIT HAVE FUNCTIONED TILL MAY, 2006 AND MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES HAD DISCONTINUED THEREAFTER FROM THE SAID UNIT, THE SALARY AND ALLOWANCE DEBITED TO THE BADDI UNIT CANNOT BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN PANCHKULA AND BADDI UNITS. AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF A SUM OF RS.1,61,823/- HAD BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF PANCHKULA UNIT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THA T THE SALARY AT BADDI UNIT HAD TO BE APPORTIONED TO PANCHKULA UNIT BUT NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SA ID CLAIM WAS FURNISHED OR REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLOCATING THE APPORTIO NED SALARY PAID TO THE DIRECTORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7. 42 LACS TO BADDI UNIT AS THE MANUFACTURING IS BEING CARRIED OUT AT BADDI UNIT. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE PRESE NT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS EM POWERED TO RECTIFY SUCH MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AN D CONSEQUENTLY AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT. 4. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO P OINT OUT THE APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MISTAKE BEING POINTED OUT, THE PRESENT OBJECTI ONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TANTAMOUNT TO REARGUING THE ISSUE, WHICH I S NOT PERMISSIBLE 3 UNDER THE ACT. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25 TH JANUARY, 2012 RATI COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH