ACIT, JAIPUR vs. JAGDISH KPRASAD SONI, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 912/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 February 2017AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, which had allowed the deduction under Section 10AA. Despite the Revenue's appeals being admitted by the High Court, no stay was granted on the Tribunal's earlier orders.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. The disallowance was based on the assessee allegedly failing to meet the conditions of Section 10AA(4)(ii) as the business was a reconstruction of an old unit.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee fulfilled the mandatory conditions for claiming deduction under Section 10AA, specifically regarding the reconstruction of an old unit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

For Appellant: Shri Sitaram Sharma (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
For Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena,(Addl.CIT)
Hearing: 27.02.2017

Heard together (6 matters)

ITA No. 912/JP/16
ITA No. 913/JP/16
ITA No. 642/JP/10
ITA No. 424/JP/12
ITA No.671/JP/13
ITA No. 754/JP/14

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal)-I, Jaipur dated 11.08.2016 and 31.08.2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013- 14 respectively. The sole ground taken by the Revenue is as under:

ITA Nos. 912 & 913/JP/16 ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Soni “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 56,40,707/- for A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs. 53,23,134/- for A.Y 2013-14 on account of deduction u/s 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring that the assessee failed to fulfil the mandatory condition prescribed u/s 10AA(4)(ii) of the IT Act as the business was formed by reconstruction of old unit which was his proprietary concern in the same trade of business.”

2.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the matter is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 642/JP/10 dated 29.04.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08, ITA No. 424/JP/12 dated 26.02.2014 for A.Y 2008-09 and 2009-10, in ITA No.671/JP/13 for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 24.11.2015 and in ITA No. 754/JP/14 and 780/JP/14 dated 27.05.2016. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO has not brought any new fact on record in this subject year but has repeated he findings recorded in the assessment order for A.Y. 2007-08. In view of that, the earlier orders of the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case should be followed and necessary relief may be granted to the assessee.

3.

The Coordinate Bench in its order dated 29.04.2011 (ITA No. 642/JP/10) has given its detailed findings at para 4.4 to 4.9 of its order wherein the Coordinate Bench had allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 10AA of the Act which has been followed in the subsequent years.

4.

The Ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of the AO. The Ld. DR also brought to the notice of the Bench that the department has not accepted the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal rendered in the subject matter in the earlier years and appeal has been admitted before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court.

ITA Nos. 912 & 913/JP/16 ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Soni 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case or in the legal position by virtue of which the claim of deduction u/s 10AA has been disallowed by the A.O in this year and in the earlier years. In respect of earlier years wherein the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Benches, though appeals have been admitted by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, it was informed at the Bar that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court while admitting the appeals filed by the department has not stayed the operation of the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches earlier. In light of above, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Benches, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. In the result the ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed in respect of both the years under consideration.

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in both the years are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Jaipur Dated:- 28/02/2017

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 1.

ITA Nos. 912 & 913/JP/16 ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Soni 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Shri Jagdish Prasad Soni, Jaipur vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT –I, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) –I, Jaipur 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.912 & 913/JP/2016)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत.

More judgments on Section 10AA

All 857 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →