No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 253 & 654/JP/2014
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
These two appeals by the by the assessee pertaining to assessment years
2008-09 and 09-10 are directed against two separate orders of ld. CIT (A)-II, Jaipur
dated 12.2.2014 and 09.07.2014 respectively. Both these appeals are taken up
together and are being disposed off by way of a consolidated order since identical
grounds are raised, for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we take up the
assessee’s appeal pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised
the following grounds of appeal :
“ That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the amount of remission of loan is taxable in the hands of the appellant and confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 13,37,90,502/- to the income of the assessee. The addition sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals) is illegal, unjustified and excessive.”
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was
picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 10th December, 2010. While framing the assessment, the AO made addition
on account of disallowance of remission of liability of Rs. 13,37,90,502/-. Aggrieved
by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering
the submissions and following the decision of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for
earlier years confirmed the addition. Now the assessee is in further appeal before
this Tribunal.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is
covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of
assessee. He submitted that the issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional
High Court in favour of the assessee.
On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone
through the orders of the authorities below. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in
DB IT Appeal No. 147/2010 in the assessee’s own case had framed the following
question of law :-
“ Whether the remission of principal amount of loan obtained from financial institutions and banks, constitutes a benefit or perquisite arising from business and would fall within the ambit of Section 28(iv) of the Act ?”
The Hon’ble High Court after considering the submissions of the assessee, answered
the question against the revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in DBIT Appeal No.
147/2010 Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, we
hereby direct the AO to delete the disallowance. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-
We have already adjudicated this issue pertaining to assessment year 2008-09
herein above. Since identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee,
therefore, following the same, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance. The
appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2017.
Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 26/09/2017. Das/
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
The Appellant- M/s. Modern Syntex (India) Ltd., Jaipur. 2. The Respondent –The Addl. CIT, Range-6, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 253 & 654/JP/2014)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत