Apex Enterprises (I) Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationI.T.A. No. 1795/ KOL/ 2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the same issue raised by the Revenue in one appeal is also raised in another pending appeal by the Revenue against the same order for the same assessment year, the former appeal is rendered infructuous and is to be dismissed as such, without adjudication on the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
I .T.A . N o. 17 95 / KOL ./ 20 0 8 As ses sm e nt y e ar : 20 01 - 20 0 2
Page 1 of 2
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA 'A' BENCH, KOLKATA
Before Shri Mahavir S ingh (Judicial M ember) and Shri Sham im Ya hya (Accountant M ember)
I.T.A. No. 1795/ KOL/ 2008 Assessment year : 2001-2002
Assistant Commission er of Income Tax,.........................Appellant Circl e-4, Kolkata, P-7, Chow ringhee Square, 8 t h F lo or, Kolkata-70 0 069
-V s.- M/ s. Apex Enterp ris es (I) Limited ,.................................Respondent 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata-70 0 001 [PAN : AADCA 7387 A]
Appeara nces by : Shri Pijush Mu kh erj ee, Sr. D.R., JCIT, for t he Departm en t Shri D.S. Da mle, F.C.A., fo r the ass essee
Date of conclud in g the hea rin g : Janua ry 13, 2015 Date of p ronouncing th e o rd er : Janua ry 15, 2015
O R D E R
Per Shamim Yahya:
This is an appe al filed by the Rev enue again st the o rder of ld. Commissioner of Inco me T ax ( Appeals)-I V, Kolkata in Appe al No. 113/CIT(A)-IV/06-07 dated 06.12. 2007 for th e assessm ent yea r 2001 -02.
2. The g rou nds of appeal read as und er:-
(1) That ord er of ld. CIT(Appeals) is ba d in law, hen ce n ot accepta ble.
(2) That under the facts a nd circumstances of the cas e, ld.
CIT(Appeals) had err ed in law as well as o n facts by deleting th e add ition o f Rs.10 ,67,500/- on accou nt o f inter est receivable from M/s. Sh aw Wa lla ce & Co. Ltd.
I .T.A . N o. 17 95 / KOL ./ 20 0 8 As ses sm e nt y e ar : 20 01 - 20 0 2
Page 2 of 2
(3) That under the facts a nd circumstances of the cas e, ld. CIT(Appeals) had err ed in law as well on facts by del eting the add ition o f Rs.10,67,500 /- on accoun t of inter est r eceivable when th e ass ess ee its elf claimed the tax deduct ed at so urce on such int er est in co me.
3. It is no ted that the sam e issu e h as bee n rais ed by the Revenu e in ITA No. 2 84/Kol/200 8, which is also an appe al again st th e same ord er of ld. CIT(Appeal s). There are some other issues also rais ed in ITA No. 284/Ko l/2008. Since the i ssue raised i n this app eal i s also rai s ed in ITA No. 284/Ko l/2008, the pres ent appe al i s t reat ed a s in f ru ctuous, inasmuch as the same is sue ha s been rai sed by th e Revenu e in an oth er appe al for the s ame year ag ain st the s ame o rd er.
4. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue st an ds dismis sed as infru ctuous.
Orde r p ronounced in th e open Co urt on 15 t h Jan uary , 2015.
Sd /- Sd /- Maha vir Singh Shamim Yahya (Judici al Me mber) (Acco untant Member)
Kolkata, th e 15 t h day of January, 2015 Cop ies to : (1) Assistant Commission er of Income Tax, Circl e-4, Kolkata, P-7, Chow ringhee Square, 8 t h F lo or, Kolkata-70 0 069 (2) M/ s. Apex Enterp ris es (I) Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata-70 0 001
(3) Commission er of Incom e-ta x (Appeals) (4) Commissioner o f In com e Tax (5) The Departmen tal Representativ e (6) Guard File By order
Assistant Registrar Income Tax App ellate Tribunal Kolkata Ben ch es, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free