C.I.T., UDAIPUR vs. M/S JYOTI MINERALS P LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/64/2013HC RajasthanRJHC01020921201317 May 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the present appeal. The dismissal was based on the High Court's previous orders in D.B.I.T. Appeal No. 48/11 (for assessment year 2004-05) and D.B.I.T. Appeal No. 13/08 (for assessment year 2003-04). In those prior appeals, the High Court had already dealt with identical questions of law. For assessment year 2004-05, the proposed question of law was not considered substantial, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. For assessment year 2003-04, the High Court treated the ITAT's finding on the identical issue as a pure finding of fact and subsequently dismissed the appeal. Therefore, following these precedents, the present appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against an order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning U.K. office expenses and foreign travel expenses for the assessee, M/s. Jyoti Minerals (P) Ltd. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the ITAT relied on its prior order for assessment year 2004-05, where similar additions were deleted. The Revenue had appealed that order to the High Court, but the proposed question of law was not considered substantial, and the appeal was dismissed. Similarly, for assessment year 2003-04, the High Court treated the ITAT's finding on a similar issue as a pure finding of fact, admitting the appeal on other grounds, and later dismissed that appeal as well.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance of additions made by the Assessing Officer out of U.K. office expenses and foreign travel expenses, thereby upholding the order of the CIT(A)? (Question of law) The Revenue's contention, as presented by its counsel, is that the ITAT's decision to delete the disallowance was based on its previous orders for assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue acknowledges that its appeals against these prior ITAT orders, concerning assessment years 2004-05 and 2003-04, were dismissed by the High Court. The High Court did not consider the proposed questions of law to be substantial in the earlier cases, treating the ITAT's findings as pure findings of fact in one instance. The Revenue does not appear to have raised any new arguments in the present appeal beyond referencing the prior dismissed appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR VS. M/S. JYOTI MINERALS (P) LTD (D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.64/13) Dated:- 17.5. 16. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant.

1.

This appeal is directed against order dated 14.12.12 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue, questioning the legality of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], deleting the disallowance of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) out of U.K. office expenses and foreign travel expenses, stands dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the ITAT has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee relying on their order dated 30.1.09 passed in ITA No.653/JU/2007 and 638/JU/2007, pertaining to assessment year 2004-05, whereby the similar additions made by the AO were deleted. Learned counsel fairly submitted that against the said order passed by the ITAT, the Revenue had preferred an appeal before this court being D.B.I.T. Appeal No.48/11, wherein identical question of law though raised by the Revenue was not considered to be a substantial question of law and consequently, no question as proposed was framed. Learned counsel submitted that the said appeal preferred by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 stands dismissed by this court vide order dated 22.5.13. 2 Learned counsel further submitted that in yet another appeal being D.B.I.T.Appeal No.13/08 preferred by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2003-04, the identical question of law as proposed was not treated to be substantial question of law rather, the finding arrived at by the ITAT in this regard was treated to be pure finding of fact, while admitting the appeal on some other substantial question of law, vide order dated 11.1.08 passed by this court. The Appeal No.13/08 also stand dismissed by this court vide order dated 17.5.13. 3. In this view of the matter, the present appeal is also dismissed in light of orders dated 22.5.13 passed in D.B.I.T. Appeal No.48/11 and order dated 11.1.08 & 17.5.13 passed in D.B.I.T. Appeal No.13/08, by this court. (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →