Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v. M/s Motor & General Sales Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 781/LKW/2013 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 78123714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AACCM4306J
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 781/LKW/2013
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow
Respondent M/s Motor & General Sales Ltd., Lucknow
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 20-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 20-11-2014
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 16-12-2013
Judgment Text
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.781/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 JT. CIT RANGE IV LUCKNOW V. M/S MOTOR & GENERAL SALES LIMITED 11 M.G. MARG LUCKNOW PAN/PAN:AACCM4306J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.782/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 JT. CIT RANGE IV LUCKNOW V. M/S MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD. 11 M.G. MARG LUCKNOW PAN/PAN:AACCM5754E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. K. C. MEENA D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. J. J. MEHROTRA C.A. DATE OF HEARING: 20 11 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 11 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN I.T.A. NO. 781/LKW/2013 IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT THEREFORE THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. :- 2 -: 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT VS. SHRI. DURGESH RAI KANPUR IN I.T.A. NO. 514/LKW/2013 IN WHICH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED AS THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED THEREIN WAS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 3. IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 268A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1999. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A READ AS UNDER:- 268A. (1) THE BOARD MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ISSUE ORDERS INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS TO OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES FIXING SUCH MONETARY LIMITS AS IT MAY DEEM FIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING FILING OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE BY ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. (2) WHERE IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR IT SHALL NOT PRECLUDE SUCH AUTHORITY FROM FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF (A)THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR; OR (B) ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT NO APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OR INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR :- 3 -: AN ASSESSEE BEING A PARTY IN ANY APPEAL OR REFERENCE TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE IN ANY CASE. (4) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR COURT HEARING SUCH APPEAL OR REFERENCE SHALL HAVE REGARD TO THE ORDERS INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE WAS FILED OR NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF ANY CASE. (5) EVERY ORDER INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE BOARD FIXING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2) (3) AND (4) SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY.] 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF THE ACT SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. WE ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.11.2014 IN I.T.A. NO. 514/LKW/2013 IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT VS. SHRI. DURGESH RAI KANPUR DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO. 782/LKW/2013: 5. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN :- 4 -: LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 21 840/- ON STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 45 000/- ON GENERAL CHARGES. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS 2 50 000/- ON TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS 4 60 099/- DUE TO THEFT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3 37 357/- ON BALANCE WRITTEN OFF. 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON ALL THE ISSUES WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AD HOC BASIS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS WHICH WERE RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NO INFIRMITY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 37 357/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT THE DEBTS WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1) AND 36(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 AND SINCE THE DEBT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). :- 5 -: SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:28 TH NOVEMBER 2014 JJ:2511 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR