Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jmc Projects India ... on 30 March, 2017
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
O/TAXAP/195/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 195 of 2017
=============================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-
2,....Appellant(s)
Versus
JMC PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED....Opponent(s)
=============================================================
Appearance :
Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
=============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
30th March 2017
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned Order dated 8th September 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ["hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"] passed in I.T.A Nos. 86/Ahd/2008 & 2566/Ahd/2009 for A.Y 2006- 2007, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law :
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Tue Aug 15 14:54:38 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/195/2017 ORDER deleting the disallowance of provision for expected loss/defect liability amounting to Rs. 1,12,31,404/=, where the same is not ascertained and contingent in nature ?"
2. The facts leading to the present Appeal in nutshell are as under :
2.1 The assessee filed return of income on 7th December 2006 for A.Y 2006-2007 declaring total income at Nil [after set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 2,68,84,322/=]. The Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["Act" for short] determining income of the assessee at Rs. 3,88,68,609/=, which has again been set off against brought forward losses to Nil.
While determining the aforesaid loss, the Assessing Officer made the following addition/ disallowance :
[1] Delayed Payment of PF & ESI of Rs. 3,99,974/=, out of Gift, Boni & Chandla Expenses of Rs. 3,52,909/=;
[2] Provision for expected losses/defect liability of Rs. 1,12,13,404/=.
2.2 It appears that the Assessing Officer made
Page 2 of 5
HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Tue Aug 15 14:54:38 IST 2017
O/TAXAP/195/2017 ORDER
disallowance of Rs. 1,12,13,404/= on account of provision for expected loss/defect liability mainly on the ground that the same is not ascertained and it is contingent in nature.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer making disallowance of Rs. 1,12,13,404/= on the provision for expected losses/defect liability, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT [A].
3.1 The learned CIT [A] allowed the said appeal and deleted the disallowances of the provisions for expected loss/defect liability amounting Rs. 1,12,13,404/=. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT [A] deleting the aforesaid disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the Revenue preferred Appeal before the learned Tribunal.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, following its decision in the appeal with respect to earlier Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Tue Aug 15 14:54:38 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/195/2017 ORDER assessment year ie., 2005-2006, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal for A.Y 2006-2007, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the aforestated proposed question of law.
6. We have heard learned counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Perused the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the orders passed by the learned CIT [A] and the learned Tribunal.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that against the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal for A.Y 2005-2006, relying upon which the Tribunal has passed the impugned order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 194 of 2017.
8. As observed hereinabove, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Tue Aug 15 14:54:38 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/195/2017 ORDER relied upon its decision in appeal for A.Y 2005-2006. For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order passed in Tax Appeal No. 194 of 2017, Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal for A.Y 2005-2006.
9. Under the circumstances, for the reasons stated in our order passed in Tax Appeal No. 194 of 2017 in the case of very assessee, but for A.Y 2005-2006, we dismiss the present Appeal also.
10. Accordingly, the present Tax Appeal stands dismissed.
{M.R Shah, J.} {B.N Karia, J.} Prakash Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Tue Aug 15 14:54:38 IST 2017