The ACIT, Central Circle 1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT v. M/s Ajanata Manufacturing Ltd, Morbi

ITA 63/RJT/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6324914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACCA3017E
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITA 63/RJT/2011
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Central Circle 1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Respondent M/s Ajanata Manufacturing Ltd, Morbi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 04-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 01-11-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 01-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA (JM) AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT ( AM) I.T.A. NO.63/RJT/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) ACIT CENT.CIR.2 VS M/S AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD RAJKOT ORPAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE RAJKOT-MORBI HIGHWAY MORBI PAN : AACCA3017E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 01-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-11-2011 APPELLANT BY : SHRI SL MEENA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJAY SHAH O R D E R PER T.K. SHARMA (JM) THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD DATED DECEMBER 29 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN TH E APPEAL: (1) WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CENTRAL EXCISE RECEIPT OF RS.21 43 75 720/- SALES TAX INCENTIVES OF RS.15 57 50 005/- AND THE VAT ON PURCHASES OF RS.1 42 75 720/- GRANTE D TO THE ASSESSEE AS INCENTIVE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT I S CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. (2) WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED REJECTING THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE ABOVE AMOUNTS AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS THROUGH FILING OF REVISED RETURN AND THROU GH MERELY WRITING A LETTER SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME. THE CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE AND DECIDED IT ACCORDIN GLY AS PER ITA NO.63/RJT/2011 2 THE SETTLED POSITION OF THE LAW THAT NO CLAIMS FOR REVISION OF INCOME CAN BE MADE WITHOUT FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS REQUIRED TO BE FILED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. (3) WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE SAID CONCLUSION RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.793/RJT/2 010 DATED 23.09.2010 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y . 2006- 07 WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT ERRED IN RELYING THE DE CISION OF THE SPL.BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DECIT V.RELIAN CE INDUSTRIES LTD 88 ITD 273 IGNORING THE DECISION O F THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHANEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD V. CIT 228 ITR 253 SC WITHOUT EXAMINING THE R EAL CHARACTER OF THE SUBSIDY GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVER NMENT TO THE ASSESSEE SETTING UP OF NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT IN K UTCH REGION. (4) WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE HONB LE ITATS DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE WHEREIN THERE WERE FINDI NGS BASED ON THE PLAIN READING OF THE INCENTIVE SCHEME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SUBSTANCE TH EREOF TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION IGNORING THE SETTLED PR OPOSITION THAT WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO BE ASCERTAINED IS THE SUB STANCE OF THE ARRANGEMENT AND NOT ITS FORM OR RECITAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE SHRI SL MEENA APPEARED AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD 284 ITR 323 (SC) CONTENDED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE THE CLAIM THAT EXCISE RECEIPT OF RS. 21 43 75 720; SALES- TAX INCENTIVE OF RS. 15 57 50 005 AND VAT OF PURCHA SE OF RS.1 42 75 720 GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENTERT AINING THE SAID CLAIM. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF ITAT RAJKOT BENCH IN ITA NO.793/RJT/2010 DATED 23-09-2010 IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND HAS IGNORED THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE SUPREME ITA NO.63/RJT/2011 3 COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHANEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LT D V. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC) WITHOUT EXAMINING THE REAL CHARACTER OF SUBSID Y GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTING UP OF NEW IN DUSTRIAL UNIT IN KUTCH REGION. 3. AS AGAINST THIS SHI SANJAY SHAH APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 24 PAGES WHICH INTER-AL IA INCLUDE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.793/RJT/2010. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT RAJ KOT BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS CONSIDERED EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AND THEN CAME TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE AS W ELL AS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF SAHANEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD V. CIT 228 ITR 25 3 (SC) HAS ALSO BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS NOW RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 (SUPRA) WHICH HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTH ORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD .CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ORDER DATED 23-09-2010 IN ITA NO.793/RJT/2010. THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO.63/RJT/2011 4 UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALSO THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY OF RS. 80 88 0 26 AND SALES-TAX INCENTIVE OF RS. 3 57 05 815 WERE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF LETTER. AFTER CONSIDERING BO TH THE JUDGMENTS VIZ. GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) AND SAHANEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS L TD V. CIT (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THESE RECEIPTS ARE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THIS ORDER. WE A RE THEREFORE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04-11-2011. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAJKOT DT : 04 TH NOVEMBER 2011 PK/- COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CENT.II AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR I.T.A.T. RAJKOT (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT