Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Liberty Enterprises, Railway Road, Karnal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 321 of 2008DATE OF DECISION : 11.07.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .... APPELLANT Versus M/s Liberty Enterprises, Railway Road, Karnal ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate,for the appellant-revenue. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the orderdated 15.6.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DelhiBench `E', Delhi, passed in ITA No. 1454/Del/2004 for the assessment year1999-2000. In the present case, the assessee is a limited company engagedin manufacture and sale of footwears and shoe uppers etc. For theassessment year 1999-2000, the assessee filed its return declaring income ofRs. 6,27,72,090/-. The Assessing Officer treated the expenditure ofRs.63,000/- on Glow Sign Boards as expenditure of capital nature. The Assessing Officer made addition of the same in the income and completedthe assessment at an income of Rs. 6,71,70,900/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana, who vide his orderdated 5.12.2003, following the orders of the ITAT passed in ITA No.3768/Del/90 and 7147 & 7148/Del/90 in assessee's own case, allowed theappeal of the assessee, while allowing the deduction, as claimed. Notsatisfied with the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dated 15.6.2007, following itsearlier decision in case of the assessee and in case of its sister concerndismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the instant appeal has been filed by theRevenue raising the following substantial question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) that expenses of Rs. 63,000/- incurred on glow sign Boardswere of revenue nature?” Counsel for the Revenue has fairly conceded that in case of thesister concern of the assessee M/s Liberty Group Marketing Division,Karnal, ten appeals (ITAs No. 9 of 2002, 79, 200, 201 of 2005, 159, 160 of2006, 452, 453, 527 and 528 of 2007), filed by the Revenue, raising thesimilar substantial question of law, have been dismissed by this Court, by acommon judgment dated April 22, 2008. Since the aforesaid substantial question of law has already beenanswered by this Court against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee,therefore, the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is answeredin affirmative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and theappeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGEJUDGE July 11, 2008 ndj ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )JUDGE