Income Tax Officer, Kanpur v. M/s Ramshree Steels Pvt. Ltd., Jalaun

ITA 751/LKW/2013 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 75123714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABCR4396L
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 751/LKW/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Income Tax Officer, Kanpur
Respondent M/s Ramshree Steels Pvt. Ltd., Jalaun
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 25-03-2015
Next Hearing Date 25-03-2015
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 22-11-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 751 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:200 4 - 20 0 5 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (2) KANPUR VS. M/S RAMSHREE STEELS PVT. LTD. 7 12 UPSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PHASE II ORAI JALAUN - 205512 PAN:A ABCR4396L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY SHRI RAKESH GARG ADVOCATE RE VENUE BY SHRI PUNIT KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 25 /0 3 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 0 /0 4 /201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA A.M. T HIS IS REVENUE S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) I KANPUR DATED 12 .0 8 .201 3 FOR A.Y. 200 4 20 0 5 . 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS AS UNDER: - THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS. 30 000/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE AUDIT FEE IN P/L A/C UNDER TWO HEADS I.E. LEGAR EXPENSES AND AUDIT FEE. 3 . LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LEAR NED A .R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT PAYMENT OF STATUTORY AUDIT FEES IS GENERALLY DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD AUDIT FEES 2 BUT OTHER PAYMENTS TO THE AUDITORS FOR TAX AUDIT FEES ETC. MAY BE DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD LEGAL EXPENSES AND MERELY ON THIS BASIS DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 5 . GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER: - TH E CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS. 38 571/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED EPF CONTRIBUTION AFTER THE PRESCRIBED DATE HENCE DEDUCTION U/S 36 (1) (VA) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IS NOT AVAILABLE AND TO BE TREATED AS INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (24) (X) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 6 . LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT (A) IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE PAYMENT IS WITHIN GRACE PERIOD . THIS FINDING OF CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. THIS IS SETTLED POSITION THAT PAYMENT DURING GRACE PERIOD IS PAYMENT WITHIN DUE DATE. HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 8 . GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: - THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELI EF OF RS. 13 92 350 / - FOR ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF A.Y. 1998 99 TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE SECTION 72 (1) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 THE BUSINESS LOSS CAN ONLY BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT AND GAIN OF BUSINESS AND NOT FROM THE BUSINESS OF SPECULATION PROFIT . 9 . LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR 3 A.Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 114/LKW/2011 DATED 06.06.2013 COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 43 TO 53 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT ( A) IS ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOTED ABOVE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS. IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2005 06 THAT LOSSES IN A BUSINESS OTHER THAN IN SPECULATION BUSINESS CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OF SPECULATION BUSINESS AS ALSO NON SPECULATION BUSINESS. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GRO UND IS ALSO REJECTED. 11 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 0 /0 4 /201 5 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR