Superhouse Leathers Limited, Kanpur v. CIT II, Kanpur

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B - BENCH LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.532(LUC.)/2005 & 1001(LUC.)/2006 A.Y.: 2001-02 M/S.SUPERHOUSE LEATHERS LTD. VS. THE ACIT RANGE - 6 150 FEET ROAD JAJMAU KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN AABCS9328K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK MISHRA CIT(DR) O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA VICE PRESIDENT AS BOTH THE APPEALS CONCERN THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN I.T.A.NO.532(LUC.)/2005 THE ASSESSEE HAS TAK EN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT-II KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961 AND IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSME NT DT.25.3.2005. 2. THE LEARNED CIT-II KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ISSUING SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW A SUM OF RS.1 83 658 ON ACCOUNT OF REASSESSMENT UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS WELL AS SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESS MENT. 2 HE HAS FAILED TO INTERPRET CORRECTLY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WHICH ALLOWS CIT EITHER TO ENHANCE OR MODIFY OR CANCEL THE ASSESSMENT. THIS SE CTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE CIT TO ORDER BOTH THE ACTION SIMULTA NEOUSLY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT-II KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC HAS BEEN EXCESS ALLOWED AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECO MPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4. THE LEARNED CIT-II KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE CONDITIONS GIVEN BY SECTION 80IA(9 )/80IB WILL APPLY IN THIS CASE AND THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC IS TO BE WORKED OUT AFTER EXCLUDING DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 5. THE LEARNED CIT KANPUR HAS ERRED IN AW AND ON FA CTS IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION F OR RS.12 49 249 UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES H AS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED AND DIRECTING THE AO TO EXAMINE AND DISALLOW THE EXPENSES WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN EXAMIN ED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM OF RS.26 490 BEING CONTRIBUTION TO CLUB. 7. THE LEARNED CIT KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ALLOWANCE OF DEFERR ED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF RS.28 35 742. 8. THE LEARNED CIT KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE AO T O EXAMINE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBT OF RS.15 85 928 . 3. IN I.T.A.NO.1001(LUC.)/2006 THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN TREATING THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR AS INFRUCTUOUS ON THE BASIS THAT 3 THE ORDER U/S 263 HAS BEEN PASSED IN THIS CASE SETT ING ASIDE THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL WITHOUT PROPERLY APPLYING HIS M IND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT ASSTT. ORDER FOR THE YEAR HA S NOT BEEN SET ASIDE ON ISSUES INVOLVED IN APPEAL BUT ON OTHER ISS UES. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DECIDING THE GROUNDS RAISED AS PER GROUNDS N O.1 TO 9 OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 3. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY UNJUST E XCESSIVE BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. SHRI AMIT SHUKLA ADVOCATE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS APPLICATION DATED 3.2.2011 HAS STATED AS UNDER : SIRS RE: M/S. SUPER HOUSE LEATHERS LTD. KANPUR ITA NO.532/LUC./2005- A.Y.2001-02 ITA NO.1001/LUC./2006- A.Y.2001-02 SUB: REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEALS- IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL BEING I.T.A.NO.532/LUC./20 05 WHICH IS AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER 263 BY CIT-II KANPUR D ATED 25.3.2004 AND OTHER APPEAL BEING I.T.A.NO.1001/LUC./2006 IS A GAINST CIT(A) ORDER PASSED IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED BY HIM AS INFRUCTUOUS AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN CANCEL LED BY CIT U/S 263. NOW IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER O N 30.11.2006 AND AGAINST SUCH ORDER CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES M OSTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 29.7.2010. AGAINST TH IS ORDER DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEING ITA NO.638/L.)/2010. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES AS PER THE I NSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE THE AFORESAID APPEALS BEING I.T.A.NOS.532 /LUC./2005 & 1001/LUC./2006 ARE BEING NOT PRESSED AS THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CRYSTALLIZED BY CIT(A) WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF A PPEAL IN ITA 4 NO.638/LKW/2010. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD. AMIT SHUKLA ADVOCATE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION WE GRANT PERMI SSION TO WITHDRAW BOTH THE APPEALS. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3.2.2011. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT FEBRUARY 3RD 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R. ITAT LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.