Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
M/S Goldee Masale Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs Department Of Income Tax
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH "A", LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.682/LKW/2013
A.Y.: 2006-07
A.C.I.T.-6, Vs. M/s Goldee Masale Pvt. Ltd.,
Lucknow. 51/40, Nayaganj, Kanpur.
PAN:AAACG6669E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Alok Mitra, D.R.
Respondent by Shri Akshay Kumar Gupta, CA
Date of hearing 28/11/2013
Date of pronouncement 23/12/2013
ORDER
PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.
This is Revenue's appeal directed against the order of CIT (A)-II, Kanpur dated 14/06/2013 for assessment year 2006-2007.
2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:
"1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs.16,29,495/- without appreciating the facts that these payments actually pertained to F.Y. 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06 and such payments could not be claimed as expenditure in A.Y. 2006-07.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the above relief without appreciating the fact that the assessee tried to conceal its purchases from Mandi Tax 2 Authorities and thus deliberately avoided making payment of tax when it was actually due.
3. The order of the CIT (A), Kanpur being erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order of the AO be restored.
4. That the appellant craves leave to modify any of the grounds of appeal or take additional ground during the pendency of this appeal."
3. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT (A).
4. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the amount of Rs.16,29,495/- is in respect of Mandi Tax. In our considered opinion, the deduction on account of such payment is allowable in the year of payment u/s 43B of the Act irrespective of the year in which the liability is incurred. Hence, on this aspect, no interference is called for in the order of CIT(A).
5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on caption page) Sd/. Sd/.
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA )
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:23/12/2013
*C.L.Singh
3
Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. Concerned CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT, Lucknow
Asstt. Registrar