TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [ 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT] . The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are set aside and the ground No. 7 in the appeal of the assessee and ground No. 4.1 to 4.5 in the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2000-01 are allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA No. 1247, 1290 & 1291/PN/2005 Assessment Year : 2000-01 & 2001-02 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2016 - Shri R.K. Panda, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM Assessee by : Shri H.P. Mahajani, Shri Bhave Revenue by : Shri S.K. Rastogi ORDER Vikas Awasthy, The appeal by the assessee in ITA No. 1247/PN/2005 and appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 1290 1291/PN/2005 are in second round before the Tribunal for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground No. 7 raised in the appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2000-01 and ground No. 4.1 to 4.5 in the appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2000-01 relating to lease rental income. 2. The ground No. 7 raised by the assessee in its appeal reads as under : 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of ₹ 4,17,888/- and ₹ 19,20,000/- to the income of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 1247/PN/2005, ground No. 4.1 to 4.5 in ITA No. 1290/PN/2005 and ground No. 2 in ITA No. 1291/PN/2005. Since, the issue involved in the aforesaid grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue is same, all the three appeals are taken up together for adjudication. 6. The facts relating to the grounds raised in the appeals are : The assessee amongst other business is also engaged in the business of giving on lease engineering products manufactured by it. The assessee entered into lease agreement with certain parties for leasing out of its products. During the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2000-01, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not shown lease rentals from the following parties in the profit and loss account. Sr. No. Name of the parties Amount 1 Modi Alkalies Limited ₹ 4,17,888/- 2 Parasrampuria Industries Ltd. ₹ 17,30,080/- 3 Parasrampuria Internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Excel Industries Ltd. (supra) and the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Maruti Securities Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 468/Hyd/2009 decided on 05-09-2014. 8. On the other hand Shri S.K. Rastogi representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition in respect of Parasrampuria Industries Ltd. and Parasrampuria International Ltd. The ld. DR contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in crossing over from one assessment year to another assessment year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have restricted the addition in the assessment year which was before him without giving any further direction to the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has leased out assets to the aforesaid companies and assessee has not received lease rentals. The assessee should have accounted for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that this issue needs a revisit to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while dealing with the issue in assessment year 2000-01 partly deleted the addition in respect of Parasrampuria Industries Ltd. and Parasrampuria International Ltd. by following the concept of real income and upheld the addition in respect of Modi Alkalies Ltd. and Inertia Industries Ltd. whereas, all the four companies are similarly placed. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh, in the light of decision rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Excel Industries Ltd. (supra). The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are set aside and the ground No. 7 in the appeal of the assessee and ground No. 4.1 to 4.5 in the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2000-01 are allowed for statistical purpose. 11. The Revenue in its appeal in ITA No. 1291/PN/2005 for assessment year 2001-02 has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the lease rental income of ₹ 1,53,21,302 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for like amounts as bad debts in the year under appeal. The AR s contention is found to be in order. In view of the facts stated in the appellate order for AY 2000-1, the AO shall allow deduction as bad debts for ₹ 4,17,888 in respect of MODI ALKALIES and ₹ 19,20,000 in respect of INERTIA INDUSTRIES LTD. 13. We find that the facts in assessment year 2001-02 are identical to the facts in assessment year 2000-01. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2000-01 directed the Assessing Officer to grant deduction for additional amount of bad debts in respect of Modi Alkalies Ltd. and Inertia Industries Ltd. in assessment year 2001-02. Since, we have remitted this issue back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in assessment year 2000-01, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 2001-02 as well to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 raised in ITA No. 1291/PN/2005 for assessment year 2001-02 is allowed for statistical purpose. 14. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
