DCIT, New Delhi v. M/s M.S. Shoes East Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1806/DEL/2010 | 1994-1995
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 180620114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCS5980M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1806/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s M.S. Shoes East Ltd, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 22-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 22-03-2012
Assessment Year 1994-1995
Appeal Filed On 20-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL I.T.A. NO.1806(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994-95 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF M.S. SHOE S EAST LTD. INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 6 (1) VS 112-A EKTA ENCLAVE NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: AABCS5980M (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS. RENU JOUHRI CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SH RI SANJAY KAPOOR C.A. DATE OF HEARIN G: 22.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT: 30.03.2012. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : A.M THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN UP THREE GROUNDS IN THIS AP PEAL. IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ALL THE ISSUES STANDS C OVERED BY EARLIER ORDERS AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSE D. 2. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 59 87 988/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN THIS CONNECTION THE LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PEARL INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN ITA NO. 1264 (DEL)/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 DATED 13.08.2009 IN WHI CH CORRESPONDING ITA NO. 1806(DEL)/2010 2 INCLUSION OF THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN DELETED BY MA KING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 3.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE AFORESAID CONSOL IDATED ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENC E:- 11. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF PIL AN D A CORRESPONDING ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF MSSE. ON THIS ISSUE WE FIND THAT THE RE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF MANUFACTURI NG FACILITIES BY M/S PIL. THE M.D. OF MSSE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHEREBY HE HAS AFFI RMED THAT THEY HAVE ALLOWED M/S PIL TO USE THE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND THAT THEY DID NOT CHARGE ANY FEE FROM THEM AS BOTH OF THEM WE RE COMPANIES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP. THIS AFFIDAVIT HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTED TO BY THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HOWEVER MADE A PASSING REFERENCE TO THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT MAKING ANY EFFORTS TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS AFFIDAVIT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FIRST REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF S . 69C VIZ. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE IS NOT PRIMA FACIE SATISFIED. IN T HE CASE OF MSSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THEY RECEIVED RS. 34 LACS FROM PIL. ON THE OTHE R HAND WE HAVE ON AFFIDAVIT OF THE M.D. AFFIRMING THAT MSSE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM PIL FOR ALLOWING IT TO USE ITS MANUFACTURING FACILIT Y. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF MSSE IS THEREFORE NO T CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 IN THE CASE OF MSSE AND GROUND NO. 7 IN THE CASE OF PIL ARE AL LOWED. ITA NO. 1806(DEL)/2010 3 RELYING ON THE AFORESAID ORDER THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSED. 2.1 THE LD. CIT DR WHILE RELYING ON THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED UNDER THE FI NDING IN THAT ORDER. 2.2 FOLLOWING THAT ORDER GROUND NOS. 2 AND 2.1 ARE DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NO. 3 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ER RED IN DIRECTING THE AO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80IA ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT SUB-SECTION (9A) WA S INSERTED IN SECTION 80IA BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT 1998 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1999 WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION GRANTED UN DER SECTION 80IA SHALL BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR COM PUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. THIS PROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INS TANT YEAR WHICH IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. THE LD. CIT DR COULD NOT REBUT THIS SUBMISSION. HAVING CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS FROM BOTH THE SIDES IT IS HELD THAT SECTION 80IA(9A) IS APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1999-00 AND ONWARDS AND IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRO CEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. THUS THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSE D. ITA NO. 1806(DEL)/2010 4 4. GROUND NO. 3.1 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ER RED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES SEIZED CA SH OF RS. 20 95 000/- WHICH FORMS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES NOT ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH IS RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND NOT THIS YEAR. NEITHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAKES ANY MENTION ABOUT THIS CASH IN ANY MANNER W HATSOEVER. THE LD. CIT DR FAIRLY SUBMITS THAT THE CASH DOES NOT FIND ANY MENTION IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HAVING CONSIDER ED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WHILE WE MAY NOT GIVE ANY FINDING ABOUT THE YEAR TO WHICH THE CASH PERTAINS THE GROUND IS DISMISSED AS IT DOES NO T ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA ITA NO. 1806(DEL)/2010 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- M.S. SHOES EAST LTD. NEW DELHI. DCIT CIRCLE 6(1) NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE D.R. ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.