DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD., KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 605/LKW/2015Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 December 2024AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn and the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order granting relief on repair expenses, deductions under Sections 80IB & 80IC, and additional depreciation. The assessee subsequently opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, leading to a settlement.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the settlement of tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, rendering the pending appeal and cross-objection moot.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 80IC,Section 32(ia),Section 139(1),Section 80AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.605/Lkw/2015
C.O.No.08/Lkw/2018

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

(A) This appeal has been filed by Revenue for assessment year 2008-09 against impugned appellate order dated 15/06/2015 of learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under:

“1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,00,000/- on account of Repair and maintenance expenses without appreciating the fact that the expenses under the head were not properly vouched and in some cases it was self-made vouchers which was not verifiable further there is no requirement of rejection of books of account in making an adhoc disallowance. Hence the A.O. has rightly made the disallowance under the head.

2.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,20,72,292/- on account of deduction U/s 801B & 80IC without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to file his return to income for the A.Y. under consideration as per Section 139(1) read with conditions laid down under section 80AC.

3.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,20,72,292/- on account of deduction U/s 8018 & 801C without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the condition as laid down for claiming deduction in terms of section 801B and 80IC of the Act and wrongly worked out the eligible profit for claiming such deduction.

4.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,20,72,292/- on account of deduction U/s 801B & 801C without appreciating the fact that the CIT(A) has quoted the case law which is prior to the insertion of 80AC and also considered the submission of the assessee regarding reason for delay in filing of return of income without providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in respect of the same.

5.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.50,26,571/- on account of disallowance in additional depreciation without appreciating the fact that the items on which additional depreciation were claimed by the assessee do not fall in category of plant and Machinery as per provisions of Section 32(ia) for claiming additional depreciation.

6.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.12,34,049/- on account of depreciation claimed @60% without appreciating the fact that the assets mentioned in the tabulated form in the assessment order do not fall in category of claiming depreciation @ 60 % hence the A.O. has rightly treated it as Office Appliance and allowed depreciation.

7.

The order of the CIT(A), Kanpur being erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

(B) During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted an application dated 17/07/2024 requesting the Bench that since the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020 “(VSVS” for short) and designated authority has issued certificate in Form-5 dated 29th November, 2021 for full and final settlement of tax arrears, therefore, the appeal filed by the Department may be dismissed as withdrawn. Learned D.R. has no objection. In view of the foregoing, the appeal of the Department is dismissed as withdrawn on account of assessee opting for VSVS.

(C) Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted an application dated 17/07/2024 in which request has been made by the assessee for permission to withdraw the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue has been settled under VSVS-2020, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and is dismissed as withdrawan.

(D) In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 17/12/2024)

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →