Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘B’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD
ITA No. 507/Ahd/2016 DCIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn A.Y. 2012-13 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘B’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Mahavir Prasad JM] I.T.A. No.507/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax …...…..………Appellant Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation …………….Respondent 1st Floor, Central Office, Vahan Vyavhar Bhavan, Gitamandir Road, Astodia, Ahmedabad-380001 [PAN : AAACG 5587 H]
Appearances by: RC Dandey for the appellant Nitesh Thakkar for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: 25.01.2018 Date of pronouncing the order: 29.01.2018
O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, AM:
This appeal, filed by the Assessing Officer, is directed against the order dated 31st December 2015 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13.
The grievance raised by the Assessing Officer in Ground No.1 is as follows:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.40,13,62,384/- made on account of motor accident claims of earlier years, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record.”
Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the coordinate bench, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10, wherein the Tribunal has held as under:-
“9. We find that merely because the MACT awards are booked by the assessee at a later point of time than the date of the award cannot be reason enough to decline the claim for deduction in respect of these awards. It is sometimes possible, rather its inherent mechanism of the system as it exists, that sometimes
ITA No. 507/Ahd/2016 DCIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 3 there is considerable delay in communicating the awards granted by MACT. The awards are generally conveyed through the lawyers representing the assessee and it does take time in many cases. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the subsequent claims are duplication of claims in respect of the same liability, and the assessee does not stand to gain as a result of this delay in accounting. In any event, the quantification of claims is verified by the statutory auditors as also the CAG audit teams, and the same method of accounted is being followed by the assessee for last 50 years. As there is no change in method of accounting, as there is no duplication of claims, and, as assessee does not anyway gain anything from delaying accounting for these claims, we see no reasons to reject the claims merely because these claims are accounting for, in the books of accounts, at a point of time later than awards being granted i.e. when the assessee gets to know about the same. In any event, the CIT(A) has given a categorical direction to the Assessing Officer for verification of claim on account of the liability having been crystallized in the relevant previous year. Grievance of the Assessing Officer, regarding crystallization of liability, does not, therefore, survive any longer. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” 4. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the co-ordinate bench. Respectfully following the views so taken by the co-ordinate bench (supra) in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 in ITA No.1192/Ahd/2014, we reject the grievance of the Assessing Officer.
Ground No.1 is thus dismissed.
In Ground No.2, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:-
“The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the income from license fees of canteen amounting to Rs.5,61,54,589/- as business income, without properly appreciating the facts o the case and the material brought on record.”.
With regard to the aforesaid issue, the learned representatives fairly agree that the same is covered, in favour of the Revenue, by another order of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal dated 24.01.2013, passed in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06, wherein the Tribunal has held as under:-
“8. We have considered rival submission and have perused the orders of the authorities below and the judgment cited by the learned counsel of the assessee. First, we discuss regarding the applicability of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryanna High Court) relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee. In that case, a finding is given that the rental of the premises was fixed and it did not change with the change of occupants and it was deducted from the wages of the employee or employees occupying the premises. It cannot be shown by the learned counsel of the assessee in the present case that these facts are identical in the present case also, even in the respect of income from rent towards staff quarter. Admittedly, the major part of the income for the licence fee of canteen is
ITA No. 507/Ahd/2016 DCIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn A.Y. 2012-13 Page 3 of 3 not from staff, but from outsiders and hence this judgment is not applicable to this receipt at all, and even for the receipt of rent on account of staff quarter, the judgment is not applicable because it could not be shown by the learned AR of the assessee that the facts are identical. Regarding the argument that this income was taxed under the head income from business in earlier years, we find that on the plea of consistency, it cannot be held that if a mistake is committed by the AO in earlier years, the same should be perpetuated. This is not case of the assessee that the rental income is not in respect of house property owned by the assessee, and hence in our considered opinion, this rental income is taxable under the head income from house property, as has been held by the authorities below, and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue, and this ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 8. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the co-ordinate bench. Respectfully following the views so taken by the co-ordinate bench (supra) in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 in ITA No.2598/Ahd/2009, we uphold the grievance of the Assessing Officer.
Ground No.2 is thus allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29th day of January, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 29th day of January, 2018 **bt* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation: ... 25.01.2018...covered matter.. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: 25.01.2018...... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.: ..... 29.01.2018... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement: ... 29.01.2018. 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk : ...... 29.01.2018............. 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk : ……………………………. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: … 8. Date of Despatch of the Order: ………………......