M/S Ramshree Steels Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (2), Vs. M/s Ramshree Steels Pvt. Ltd. Kanpur 7 - 12, UPSIDC Industrial Estate, Phase - II, Orai, Jalaun - 205512 PAN:AABCR4396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by Shri Punit Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25/03/2015 Date of pronouncement 30/04/2015

ORDER

PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is revenue's appeal directed against the order of Learned CIT (A) - I Kanpur Dated 12.08.2013 for A.Y. 2004 - 2005.

2. Ground No. 1 is as under:-

"The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs. 30,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has debited the audit fee in P/L a/c under two heads i.e. Legar Expenses and Audit Fee."

3. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order. Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A).

4. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the considered opinion that payment of Statutory audit fees is generally debited under the head Audit Fees 2

but other payments to the auditors for Tax Audit Fees etc. may be debited under the head legal expenses and merely on this basis, disallowance is not justified. Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) on this issue. This ground is rejected.

5. Ground No. 2 is as under:-

"The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs. 38,571/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited EPF contribution after the prescribed date hence deduction u/s 36 (1) (va) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not available and to be treated as income as per provisions of section 2 (24) (x) of the I.T. Act, 1961."

6. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order. Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A).

7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the decision of learned CIT (A) is on this basis that the payment is within grace period. This finding of CIT (A) could not be controverted by learned DR of the revenue. This is settled position that payment during grace period is payment within due date. Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) on this issue also. This ground is also rejected.

8. Ground No. 3 is as under:-

"The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs. 13,92,350/- for adjustment of brought forward loss of A.Y. 1998 - 99 to the year under consideration without appreciating the fact that as per the section 72 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the business loss can only be set off against the profit and gain of business and not from the business of speculation profit."

9. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order. Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the tribunal decision in assessee's own case for 3

A.Y. 2005 - 06 in ITA No. 114/LKW/2011 dated 06.06.2013, copy available on pages 43 to 53 of the paper book.

10. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the decision of learned CIT (A) is also by following the tribunal order cited by the learned AR of the assessee as noted above. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts. It was held by the tribunal in A.Y. 2005 - 06 that losses in a business other than in speculation business can be set off against profits of speculation business as also non speculation business. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) on this issue also. This ground is also rejected.

11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:30/04/2015 *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar