M/s Star Tanning Industries, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Kanpur

MA 8/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2849 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNEET KUMAR

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.08 /LKW/20 15 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.303/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 M/S STAR TANNING INDUSTRIES, 19, 150 FT. ROAD, JAJMAU, KANPUR. PAN:AANFS8853Q VS. DY.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY NONE (APPLICATION DT.04/03/2015) RESPONDENT BY SHRI PUNEET KUMAR, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 13/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /03/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS POINTED OUT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THAT IN LINE NO. 7 OF PARA 5 IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN WRONGLY STATED AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WHEREAS IT SHOULD BE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007 - 08. IT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THAT THIS MISTAKE SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION. WE FIND THAT IN THIS PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS IN COURSE OF DEC IDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN I.T.A. NO.303/LKW/2014, IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.8,91,133/ - , RS.8,04,720/ - WAS CONSIDERED AS RELATABLE TO THE PRESENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 BECA USE THE APPEAL WAS [ 2 ] BEING DECIDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT, IT IS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN LINE 7 OF PARA 5 THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.86,412/ - HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS RELATABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,04,720/ - WAS CONSIDERED AS RELATABLE TO THE PRESENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.86,412/ - WAS WRONGLY STATED TO BE RELATABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND IN FACT , IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RELATABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007 - 08. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT IN LINE NO. 7 OF PARA NO. 5 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER , THE ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED AS 2006 - 07 SHOULD BE READ AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE SAID PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER STANDS MODIFIED TO THIS EXTENT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (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 0 / 03/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE O RDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR