The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad

ITA 1493/AHD/2018 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2019 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 149320514 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAACG5587H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1493/AHD/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad
Respondent Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags 1493
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 23-09-2019
First Hearing Date 23-09-2019
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 06-06-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& MS. MADHUMITA ROY JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1493/AHD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE VAHAN VYAVHAR BHAVAN GITAMANDIR ROAD ASTODIA AHMEDABAD [ PAN NO. AAA CG5 587 H ] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI APARNA AGARWAL CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SULABH PADSHAH A.R. DATE OF HEARING 23.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 .11 . 2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2018 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 6 AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHME DABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - ITA NO.1493/AHD/2018 ACIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 2 - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 41 97 132/- MADE ON ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE CLAIMED O N RECONDITIONING OF BUSES & ASSEMBLIES ETC. WHICH WERE TREATED AS CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE. 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE RAT IO-DECIDENDI OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANAND THEATERS DATED 12.05.2000 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS IN TREA TING THE INCOME FROM LICENSE FEES OF CANTEEN AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 49 43 95 7/- AS BUSINESS INCOME WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THERE IS 36 DAY S DELAY IN THE INSTANT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) BROUGHT TO OUR NOT ICE TO THE WRITTEN REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY MADE BY THE LD. PR INCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AHMEDABAD ON 06.06.20 18. UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAME WE FIND THAT SUCH DELAY OF 36 D AYS HAS BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED. THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL HAS AL READY BEEN EXPIRED WHEN THE CONCERNED OFFICER JOINED THE OFFICE. BEIN G SATISFIED ON SUCH EXPLANATION MADE BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WE FIND IT FIT AND PROPER TO CONDONE SUCH DELAY. HENC E APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS ALLOWED. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATING TO THE DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS. 2 41 97 132/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIME D ON RECONDITIONING OF BUSES AND ASSEMBLIES ETC UPON TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ITA NO.1493/AHD/2018 ACIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 3 - IS A COVERED ONE AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORISE REPRESENTATIVE (AR); OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 201 3-14 BY AND UNDER THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2019 PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH; A COPY WHEREOF HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US. HOWEVER SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISE REPRESENTATIVE(AR) HAS BEEN FA ILED TO BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVEN UE. 4. HEARD THE PARTIES PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH IN ITA NO. 2690/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IS REPRO DUCED HEREUNDER BELOW:- 4. GROUND NO.2 IN THIS GROUND REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.6 55 49 995/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAP ITALIZATION OF RECONDITIONING OF BUSES AND ASSEMBLIES ETC. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL LE ARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY AND UNDER AN O RDER DATED 24.01.2013 PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA N O.2785/AHD2009 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN APPEAL P REFERRED BY THE REVENUE. A COPY WHEREOF HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEF ORE US. HOWEVER THE LEARNED DR FAILED TO CONTROVERT SUCH SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE LEARNED AR. 6. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS: 12. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9 73 94 965/- MADE BY THE AO BEI NG THE EXPENSES OF RECONDITIONING OF BODY AND ENGINE EXPEN SES. ITA NO.1493/AHD/2018 ACIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 4 - 13. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.1995-1996 1997-1998 1 990-1991 AND 1991-1992 IN ITA NO.22 1871 2794 AND 3429/AHD/200 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.31 TO 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND HAVE P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROV ERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE COPY OF THE T RIBUNAL DECISION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK AND WE ALSO FIND THAT AS PER PARA-11 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENC E THIS PARA-11 FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 11. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT OF THE CASE IN HA ND EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED TO PRESERVE AND MAIN TAIN AN ALREADY EXITING ASSET AND THE OBJECT OF THE EXPEND ITURE WAS NOT TO BRING A NEW ASSET INTO EXISTENCE OR TO OBTAIN A NEW ADVANTAGE. THE OBJECT BEHIND SECTION 31(I) IS TO PR ESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE ASSET AND NOT TO BRING IN A NEW ASSET. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SARVANA SPINNING MILLS P LTD. (SUPRA) AND OF HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN MIHIR TEXTILES (SUPRA) AS ALSO THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIR MITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES ARE BASICALLY ON REPAIRS AS THESE EXPENSES DO NOT BRING IN TO EXISTE NCE ANY NEW ASSET OR ADVANTAGE. THUS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE FOUR APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SINCE THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFER ENCE IN THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFER E WITH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIN D NO REASON TO TAKE VIEW OTHER THAN THAT ALREADY BEEN DECIDED B Y THIS TRIBUNAL AND ITA NO.1493/AHD/2018 ACIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 5 - HENCE RESPECTFULLY RELYING ON THE SAME WE REJECT T HE GROUND PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS NARRATED HEREINABOVE RESPECTFULLY RELY ING UPON THE SAME WE FIND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY REVENUE AS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALLOWING THE INCOME FROM L ICENSE FEES OF CANTEEN AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 49 43 957/- TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2013-14 AS HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LD. AUTHORISE REPRESENTATIVE(AR) H AS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY US UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER AS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. AUTHORISE REPRESENTATIVE(AR). 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) HOWEVE R FAILED TO CONTROVERT SUCH SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR; THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS REPRODUCED AS FOLLOWS:- 7. GROUND NO.3 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM LICENCE FEES OF CANTEEN AMOUNTING TO RS.4 97 20 806/- AS BUSINESS INCOME WITHOUT PRO PERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD A S ALLEGED. 8. AT THE VERY OUTSET OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APP EAL THE LEARNED AR FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY AND UNDER THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.507/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE COPY WHEREOF HA S ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAME AND WE FIND THE FOLLOWING WAS THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE : ITA NO.1493/AHD/2018 ACIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 6 - 7. WITH REGARD TO THE AFORESAID ISSUE THE LEARNE D REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE SAME IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY ANOTHER ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL DATED 24.01.2013 PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND HAVE PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENT CI TED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRST WE DISCUSS REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HAR YANNA HIGH COURT) RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE A FINDING IS GIVEN THAT THE RENTAL OF THE PREMISES WAS FIXED AND IT DID NOT CHANGE WITH THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANTS AND IT WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES OCCUPYING THE PREMISES. IT CANNOT BE SHOW N BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THESE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO EVEN IN THE RESPECT OF INCOME FROM RENT TOWARDS STAFF QUARTER. ADMITTED LY THE MAJOR PART OF THE INCOME FOR THE LICENCE FEE OF CAN TEEN IS ITA NO. 507/AHD/2016 DCIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSP ORT CORPN A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 3 NOT FROM STAFF BUT FROM OUTSIDERS AND HENCE THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS RECEIPT AT ALL AND EVEN FOR THE RECEIPT OF RENT ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF QUARTER THE JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAU SE IT COULD NOT BE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. REGARDING THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS INC OME WAS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN EARLIE R YEARS WE FIND THAT ON THE PLEA OF CONSISTENCY IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT IF A MISTAKE IS COMMITTED BY THE AO IN EARLIER YEARS TH E SAME SHOULD BE PERPETUATED. THIS IS NOT CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME IS NOT IN RESPECT OF HOUSE PROPERTY O WNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS RENTAL INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HENC E WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE VIEWS SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 IN ITA NO.2598/AHD/2009 WE UPHOLD THE GRIE VANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.1493/AHD/2018 ACIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 7 - TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF THE MATTER AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DECLIN E TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. HENCE REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLO WED. RESPECTFULLY RELYING UPON THE SAME WE FIND THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND HEN CE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 / 1 1 /201 9 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/11/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. ! ' #$%% / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ! #$ / ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 31.10.2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.11.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 21.11.2019 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .11.2019 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S .11.2019 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27 .11.2019 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER