COMM. OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. M/S. BANSWARA SYNTHETIC LTD..

DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 15th January 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Johari for the respondent . <><><>

BY THE COURT: (Per Hon’ble Dinesh Maheshwari),J. These two appeals, arising out of common order dated 22.12.2006 as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhur Bench, Jodhpur affirming the concerning orders as passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur in respect of appeals relating to the assessment years 1996-1997 and 2001-2002, have been admitted on identical nature substantial questions of law with only difference as regards the amount involved. The order of admission with question as formulated in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.136/2007 concerning the assessment year 1996-1997 could be noticed as under:- “It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the earlier order of the ITAT relied upon in the impugned order has already been challenged by the Revenue before this Court by way of D.B.I.T.A. No.23/2005, which has been admitted on 7.4.2005. In that view of the matter, this appeal is also admitted by framing the following substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and confirming the order of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of addition of Rs.52,34,789/- made by the AO on account of disallowance on lease rent ignoring the substantial finding given by the AO that lease agreement is that of a financing one and not the operational, treat the costs of the leased assets as loan amount and lease rental as interest?”

This appeal be connected with the files aforesaid D.B.I.T.A. No.23/2005 and 54/2007.” In Appeal No.154/2007, concerning the assessment year 2001-2002, the question is similar one except the amount involved i.e., Rs.13,90,128/-. These appeals were admitted, inter alia, with reference to D.B.I.T.A. Nos.23/2005 and 54/2007. In fact, the common order in the present cases has been passed with reference to the order that had been the subject-matter of Appeal No.54/2007. So far Appeal No.54/2007 is concerned, which involved essentially the same questions about the nature of lease and as to whether the lease rentals were allowable as business expenditure,

we have considered the matter in detail in a separate judgment delivered today; and, with reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd.: (1998) 231 ITR 308 and of this Court in Rajshree Roadways Vs. Union of India & Ors.: 263 ITR 206 (Raj.), we have held the findings of the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, allowing lease rental as business expenditure, not calling for any interference. The considerations, reasonings and observations in the judgment delivered in Appeal No.54/2007 equally apply to the present cases too. Therein, we have ultimately held as under:- “In the ultimate analysis, in the present case where the respondent- assessee has been found to be essentially a hirer after appreciation of evidence on record, in our view, no interference in the findings on the mixed question of law and facts as rendered by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal is called for. The features as noticed by the CIT(A) in his order make it clear that the lease rentals paid on the hired machinery were allowable as business expenditure for the year in question.” Thus, following the decision in Appeal No.54/2007, both these appeals are also dismissed in the same terms. No costs.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. cpgoyal/- D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.154/2007 CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Banswara Synthetic Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 15th January 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Johari for the respondent . Following the decision in Appeal No.54/2007, the present appeal stands dismissed in the same terms [vide common judgment made in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.136/2007: CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Banswara Synthetic Ltd.] (ARUN BHANSALI),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. cpgoyal/-