The Income Tax Officer, Jammu v. M/s. Master India,, Jammu

ITA 564/ASR/2013 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 56420914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ABCPG9405H
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 564/ASR/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant The Income Tax Officer, Jammu
Respondent M/s. Master India,, Jammu
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2013
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 29-08-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.548(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :ABCPG9405H INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SH. RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA WARD 1(2) JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.565(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AAHFK8675Q INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S. KANCHAN SOAP & DETERG ENTS WARD 1(2) JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.564(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AAMFM7080N INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S. MASTER INDIA WARD 1(2) JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.550(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AACCT2737L INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S. TBA OSNAR CHEMICALS P VT. LTD. WARD 1(3) JAMMU. JAMMU. 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.MAHAVIR SINGH DR RESPONDENT BY:SH.P.N.ARORA ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING:28/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:28/10/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CIT(A) JAMMU FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 & 2010 - 11. 2. IN ITA NO.548(ASR)/2013 THE REVENUE HAS RAISE D FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB ON CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND BY RELYING UPON ORDERS OF HON'BL E HIGH COURT IF J&K JAMMU WHICH HAS BEEN DELIVERED NOT ON MERITS O F THE ISSUE BUT HOLDING THE RECEIPT TO BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT ONLY BE CAUSE THE POLICY UNDER WHICH THE SAME WAS PAID ENVISAGED TACKLING TH E UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A GOOD TEST FOR DECIDING WHETHER A RECEIPT IS A TRADING RECEIPT OR A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PONNI SUGAR & SAWHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LTD WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD SUCH RECEIPTS TO BE THE REVE NUE RECEIPTS IN AS MUCH AS IN THAT CASE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ONLY AFTER THE INDUSTRIES HAD BEEN SET UP AND PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE FOR PURPOSE OF SETTING UP OF INDUSTRIES. 3 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK COMPANY WHICH LAYS DOWN TWO IMPORTANT TESTS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RE CEIPTS IS A TRADING RECEIPT OR A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING AND APPLIED THE PURPOSE TEST AS LAID DOWN BY THE JUDGME NTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF REFUND OF CENTRAL EXCISE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SPENT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER FOR PURPOSE OF SUBS TANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRY. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN ITA NO.565(ASR)/2013 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.33 04 908/- O N ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB ON EXCISE DUTY REFUND W HILE TREATING THE RECEIPTS AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT AS REVENUE REC EIPT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 44 658/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB ON INTEREST SUBSIDY WHI LE TREATING THE RECEIPTS AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT AS REVENUE REC EIPT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. IN ITA NO.564(ASR)/2013 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 64 30 353/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 ON CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND . 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9.17.143/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF 4 DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 ON INTEREST SUBSIDY. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. IN ITA NO.550(ASR)/2013 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.33 04 908/- O N ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB ON EXCISE DUTY REFUND W HILE TREATING THE RECEIPTS AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT AS REVENUE REC EIPT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE RELATING TO EXCISE DUTY REFUND AND INTER EST SUBSIDY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF J & K IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V . CIT AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS TO BE TREATED A S CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED. BOTH THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN T HE PRESENT APPEALS ARE SIMILAR WHICH THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID CASE. NO OTHER POINT HAS BEEN EST ABLISHED AND ARGUED BY THE LD. DR FOR DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V. CIT A ND ANOTHER (SUPRA). 5 THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS V. CIT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER BY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. ACCORDI NGLY WE DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE BY UPHOLDING IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY TH E REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH OCTOBER. 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28TH OCTOBER 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES:I) M/S. MASTER INDIA JAMMU (II) M/S. KANCHAN SOAP & INDUSTRIES JAMMU (III) M/S. TBA OSNAR CHEM ICALS PVT. LTD. JAMMU (IV)M/S. SUN COMPONENT SAMBA. 2. THE ITO WARD 1(2) & 1(3) JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A) JAMMU 4. THE CIT JAMMU 5. THE SR DR ITAT AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.