ACIT, New Delhi v. M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4842/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 484220114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACJ1525E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4842/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 19-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 19-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-04-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 23-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4842/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-7 NEW DELHI. VS. M/S JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD. 4 TH FLOOR BHANDARI HOUSE 91 NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACJ1525E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. SAPRA ADVOCATE O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (A) DATED 15.10.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16 670/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A O F THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 06 312/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE S. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 21 659/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A) OF THE ACT . ITA NO.4842/DEL/2009) 2 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AMEN D ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF TH E HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OF FICER. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE I SSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A MAY BE REST ORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE LAW. LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION ON THIS ISSUE. THE ISSUE RAISED I N GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 IN RESPECT OF PRIOR PERIOD E XPENSES LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THESE BILLS AND VOUC HERS PERTAINED TO THE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF TRAVELING OVER-VALUATION OF STOCK IN PRECEDING YEAR WHICH WAS DETECTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THERE IS A FINDIN G OF FACT RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF RECORD THAT THESE EXPENSES/DEBI TS WERE CRYSTALISED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION. 5. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE L D. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS:- I) PT. SHEO NATH PRASAD SHARMA VS. CIT LUCKNOW & O THERS (1967) 66 ITR 647 (ALL) II) CIT VS. BHARAT GENERAL REINSURANCE CO. LTD. 81 ITR 303 (DEL) AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND RELEVANT JUDGMENT S RELIED UPON WERE CONSIDERED. IT IS HELD IN THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT S THAT ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE CONCLUSIVE AND IT IS OPE N TO A PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT WAS CORRECT. AF TER CONSIDERING THE DETAIL FILED BY THE APPELLANT I AM OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. SHORT RECOVERY OF TDS ON INCOME WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. HENCE DISALLWOANCE U/S 40(A) OF RS.4 21 659/- ARE D ELETED. ITA NO.4842/DEL/2009) 3 6. SINCE THERE IS NO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A) THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD. C OUNSEL. LD. DR HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT TH ESE EXPENSES/DEBITS WERE CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION. THE EXPE NSES THOUGH RELATABLE TO EARLIER YEAR WERE CRYSTALISED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION THER EFORE WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 8. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 IN OUR VIEW NO CASE HAS BEE N MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE TO FALL U/S 40 (A) SINCE SHORT RECOVERY OF TDS ON INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED. IN VIEW THEREOF THE CIT (A)S ORDER O N THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.04.2 010. SD/- SD/- [K.G. BANSAL] [R.P. TOLANI] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 19.04.2010. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES