COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. M/S PUNEET UDYOG.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/537/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093481201010 November 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that an identical appeal in the case of the assessee, CIT vs. M/s Puneet Udyog, being I.T.A. No.337 of 2009, had already been dismissed by this Court on February 16, 2010. Therefore, following its own precedent, the present appeal was also dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the three issues raised by the revenue were not detailed in the judgment, as the appeal was disposed of on the ground of being identical to a previously dismissed appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated December 17, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2006-07 and challenged the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The additions in dispute were Rs. 24,78,220/- on account of suppression of production, Rs. 11,04,543/- on account of freight, octroi, and cartage expenses, and Rs. 6,10,596/- on account of sales promotion. The ITAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting these additions.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the deletion of Rs. 24,78,220/- made by the AO on account of suppression of production, despite the assessee allegedly failing to correctly show the quantity of soap manufactured in its books. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the deletion of Rs. 11,04,543/- made by the AO on account of freight, octroi, and cartage expenses, given the assessee's alleged failure to prove the genuineness of the expenditure, and considering the ITAT's earlier decisions in the assessee's case where revenue's appeals were pending. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the deletion of Rs. 6,10,596/- made by the AO on account of sales promotion, as the assessee allegedly failed to prove the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and in light of the ITAT's earlier decision where revenue's appeal was pending. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: Argued that the ITAT was wrong in deleting the additions on suppression of production, freight, octroi, and cartage expenses, and sales promotion, as the assessee failed to prove the correctness or genuineness of the figures and expenditures.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.537 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Puneet Udyog. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 17.12.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.3041/Del/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.24,78,220/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of suppression of production disregarding the fact that the assessee had failed to show the quantity of soap manufactured during the year correctly in its books of accounts to the extent of Rs.24,78,220/-? II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the

I.T.A. No.537 of 2010 order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.11,04,543/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of freight, octroi and cartage expenses disregarding the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the genuiness of the expenditure and the Ld. ITAT confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of its own earlier years decisions in assessee’s case against which revenue’s appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court till date? III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.6,10,596/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of sales promotion disregarding the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of incurring the expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and the Ld. ITAT confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of its own earlier decision dated 08.08.2008 in assessee’s case against which revenue’s appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court till date?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that identical appeal in the case of the assessee was dismissed by this Court on 16.2.2010 being I.T.A. No.337 of 2009 CIT v. M/s Puneet Udyog. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 10, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →