A.C.I.T.-4(1), Agra v. M/s Dakshinanchal Vitran Nigam Ltd., Agra

ITA 5/AGR/2014 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 520314 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AACCD0695D
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 5/AGR/2014
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant A.C.I.T.-4(1), Agra
Respondent M/s Dakshinanchal Vitran Nigam Ltd., Agra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 02-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 02-04-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 13-01-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.04 & 05/AGRA/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(1) AGRA VS. DAKSHINANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED 220-KV SUB-STATION BYE PASS ROAD AGRA. (PAN AACCD 0695 D). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH KUMAR CIT (D.R.) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPENDRA MOHAN & MISS. PRARTHANA JALAN CAS DATE OF HEARING : 02.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2014 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY WAY OF THESE APPEALS THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 23.09.2013 PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A)-II AGRA IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTIC AL AND ARISES OUT OF COMMON SET OF FACTS BOTH OF THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.04 & 05/AGRA/2014 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 2 3. SINCE COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.04/AGRA/2014 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO AS CERTAIN THE AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY DUTY AND PROVIDENT FUND THEREBY ALLO WING RELIEF AND IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AFTER EXAMIN ATION OF THE COMPUTATION THUS DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL BY ESSENTI ALLY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT A POWER WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN AWAY ( OMITTED) BY THE FINANCE ACT 2001 AND THE CIT(A) IS NO LONGER VESTE D WITH SUCH POWER W.E.F. 01.06.2001. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND THE DECISION BEING UNLAW FUL DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESERVES TO BE RESTORED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR ALTER ANY OR MORE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. THE AFORESAID GROUNDS AND THE RECORD REVEAL THAT THERE ARE TWO ISSUES WHICH REQUIRE ADJUDICATION IN BOTH THESE APPEALS - (1) DI SALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND (2) DISALLOWANCE OF DE PRECIATION. WHILE ASSAILING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON BOTH THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDE RATION THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT OF ELECT RICITY DUTY AND PROVIDENT FUND AND ALSO DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AFTER EXAM INATION OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ITA NOS.04 & 05/AGRA/2014 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF BOTH THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERAT ION HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2004-05 GIVING SIMILAR REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER F OR A.Y. 2004-05 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.179/AG RA/2011 WHERE THE AGRA BENCH OF ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.09.2012 HAS UPHEL D THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2004-05. HENCE THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER DATE D 21.09.2012 (SUPRA) OF ITAT AGRA BENCH. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTA BLE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.09.2012 OF ITAT AG RA BENCH WHEREIN THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE FACTS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS REFERRED TO ABO VE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. COPY OF DEBIT NOTE IS FILED AT PAGE 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QU ESTION WAS PAID DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND SUCH AMOUNT WAS PA ID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. SUCH AN ADJUSTMEN T HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. MA DHYA GUJRATE VIJ COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) AND WAS HELD TO BE SUFFICI ENT COMPLIANCE U/S. 43B OF THE IT ACT. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 43B THAT ITA NOS.04 & 05/AGRA/2014 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 4 THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ON ACTUAL PAYMENT AND WH EN PF CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MADE BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.M. ELECTRONICS LTD. 313 ITR 161 AND DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. VINAY CEMENT LIMITED 213 CTR 268 AND CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUS IONS LTD. 319 ITR 306. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT AND IS DISMISSED. 8. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF AGGREGATE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WHICH WERE RECEIVE D ON 31.03.2003 AND THE NET FIXED ASSETS RECEIVED ON TRANSFER SCHEM E WAS RS.834.01 CRORES AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE LOWEST RATE AND WHATEVER ADDITION IN THE ASSETS WAS MADE THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ALLOWED 50% OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN GRANTIN G RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE RESULT THE REMAININ G GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 7. AS EVIDENT FROM A PLAIN LOOK AT THE GROUND OF AP PEAL THE ACTUAL GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ON MERITS BUT ON THE LEGAL ISS UE REGARDING LIMITATIONS ON THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT POST 1 ST JUNE 2001 IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO THE COMMISSIONERS (APPEALS) TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS DONE PRECISELY THAT. WHILE APPELLANT IS RIGHT IN PRINCIPLE BUT THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS NO LONGER OF ANY PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANY GRIEVANCES ON MERITS NOR SUCH A GRIEVANCE AS IS RAISED BEFORE US EVEN IF UPHELD WILL AFFECT THE POWERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REVENUE THUS DERIVES NO PRACTICAL ADVANTAGE FROM RA ISING THIS ISSUE BEFORE US. ITA NOS.04 & 05/AGRA/2014 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 5 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AS ALSO BEARIN G IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE WE SEE NO REASONS TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. IN ANY EVENT EVEN ON MERITS THE ISSUE REGARDING MERITS OF IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY AN ORDER OF THIS BENCH. THE TECHNICAL INFIRMITY AS POINTED OUT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS OF NO PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE SO FAR AS I MPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE CONCERNED. THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AR E FOUND TO HAVE NO MERIT AND ARE THUS LIABLE TO FAIL. 9. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.04.2014) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 29 TH APRIL 2014 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT AGRA BENCH AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA TRUE COPY