The Dy. Commissioner of Inocme-tax, Pathankot v. The Gurdaspur Coop Sugar Mills,, Gurdaspur

ITA 543/ASR/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 54320914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAAAT0586H
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 543/ASR/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant The Dy. Commissioner of Inocme-tax, Pathankot
Respondent The Gurdaspur Coop Sugar Mills,, Gurdaspur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 20-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 13-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 13-10-2016
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 09-11-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.55(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASST. CIT CIRCLE-VI PATHANKOT VS. THE GURDASPUR CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. VILLAGE PANIAR GURDASPUR. PAN:AAAAT0586H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.543(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DY. CIT CIRCLE PATHANKOT VS. THE GURDASPUR CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. VILLAGE PANIAR GURDASPUR. PAN:AAAAT0586H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.98(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 DY. CIT CIRCLE PATHANKOT VS. THE GURDASPUR CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. VILLAGE PANIAR GURDASPUR. PAN:AAAAT0586H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. PADAM BAHL (CA) DATE OF HEARING: 13.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 20.10.2016 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY (JM): THE INSTANT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ORDERS DATED 14.11.2013 04.08.2011 & 12.12.2011 P ERTAINING TO ASST. YEARS: 2007-08 2006-07 & 2001-02 RESPECTIVELY PASS ED BY LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.55 543 & 98(ASR)/2014 2011& 2012 ASST. YEARS: 2007-08 2006-07 & 2001-02 2 2. THE SAID APPEALS IN ITA NO.55(ASR)/2014 ITA NO. 543(ASR)/2011 & ITA NO.98(ASR)/2012 HAD BEEN DECIDED ON 22.12.2014 08.05.2012 & 28.06.2012 RESPECTIVELY. 3. THEREAFTER BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER PASSED BY R EVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER IN APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT. 4. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT REMANDED THE CASES TO ITAT FOR DECIDING AFRESH. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY C RUX/OPERATIVE PART REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 5. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF FULL BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2009) 315 ITR 351 (P&H)(FB) HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE REVENUE HAD FILED AN APPEAL AGAI NST THE SAID JUDGMENT BEFORE THE APEX COURT TITLED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. (2015) 373 ITR 35 (SC) WHEREIN FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER JUDGMENT IN MORINDA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 354 ITR 230 (SC) THE APEX COURT HAD REMANDED THE MATTER BACK FOR ADJ UDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. ON THE AFORESAID PREMISES IT WAS PRAYED TH AT THESE APPEALS BE REFERRED BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFOR DING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES. 7. THE APPEALS STAND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 5. NOW THE INSTANT APPEALS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO MO TION ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT PASSED BY THE ORDER DATED 11 TH DEC.2015 IN THE AFORESAID CASES. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IDENTICAL AND S IMILAR CASES THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS PASSED THE SIMILAR OR DER AND IN PURSUANCE TO THAT THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERR ED/REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH AS THE MATTERS INVOLVED MINUTE DISCUSSIONS AND ANLIZATION OF THE FACTS IT WOULD B E PROPER AND ITA NO.55 543 & 98(ASR)/2014 2011& 2012 ASST. YEARS: 2007-08 2006-07 & 2001-02 3 APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THE CASES TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH. 6.1 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROPRIA TE ORDER BE PASSED DIRECTING THE REVENUE BE PRECLUDED FROM RAISING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OR ANY GROUND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN AGITATED AND DECI DED EARLIER AS THE SAME AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO THE PARTIES. 7. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT HE DO NOT HAVE OBJECTION IF THE CASES BE REMANDED TO LD. CIT(A) FO R DECIDING AFRESH HOWEVER THE RESTRICTION CANNOT BE IMPOSED AS THE M ATTER INVOLVES COMPLEX ISSUES PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT YEARS AND RE SULT OF ONE CASE SHALL INFLUENCE THE MERIT OF ANOTHER CASE AND EVEN OTHERW ISE NEITHER IT WAS PLEADED BY THE AR IN THE HIGH COURT FOR RESTRICTION S OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS NOR IT REFLECTS FROM THE ORDER THAT THE RE IS SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON RAISING THE GROU NDS. 8. THE ORDER REFLECTS THAT 2 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF LAW HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.213/2015 AND CO NSEQUENTLY PASSED THE ORDER AND THE SAME ORDER IS APPLICABLE TO THE O THER APPEALS ALSO. AS IN THE CONCERNED APPEALS THE MATTERS WERE REMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFT ER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO R EMAND THE INSTANT CASES TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) AS THE MATTER REQUIRES T O BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHILE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INTRICACIES AND TECHNICAL FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASES. ITA NO.55 543 & 98(ASR)/2014 2011& 2012 ASST. YEARS: 2007-08 2006-07 & 2001-02 4 8.1 FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT NO RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE REVEN UE TO PRECLUDED FROM RAISING THE GROUNDS ALREADY TAKEN AND DISPOSED OFF AND OR TO RAISE ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND OR RE-AGITATING OF THE GROUND ALR EADY DECIDED. 8.2 EVEN OTHERWISE THE COMPLEX ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEALS THEREFORE WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTR ICT OURSELVES NOT TO DRAW ANY OUTLINE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES BECAUSE GR OUND NO.3 OF THE INSTANT APPEALS URGES THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEA VE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THEREFORE IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE WE REMAND THE CASES TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECI DING AFRESH WITHOUT BEING ANY RESTRICTIONS AND INFLUENCED BY ANY OBSERVATIONS PASSED IN THE PREVIOUS ORDERS AS WELL AS JUDGMENT OF THE ITAT AND THE HIGH COURT. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20. 10. 2016. SD/- SD/ - (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED:20.10.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A) (4) THE CIT (5) THE SR DR I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER