Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Lakhani India Limited, Faridabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income Tax Appeal No.211 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Order: 07.10.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..Appellant Versus M/s Lakhani India Limited, Faridabad ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate,for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) C.M.No.14672-CII of 2014 Prayer in this application is to condone delay of 766 daysin re-filing the appeal. We have heard counsel for the appellant and as sufficientcause has been shown, allow the application and condone the delayof 766 days in re-filing the appeal. C.M.No.14673-CII of 2014 Allowed as prayed for. Income Tax Appeal No.211 of 2014 The revenue is before us challenging orders dated24.03.2011(Annexure A-II) and 10.08.2011(Annexure A-III),passed by the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D',New Delhi, respectively. Counsel for the revenue submits that the ITAT as well asCIT(A) have erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.29,69,625/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of under valuation of stock and,therefore, the following question of law arises for adjudication:- “Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances ofthe case, Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deletingthe disallowance of Rs.29,69,625/- made by theAssessing Officer on account of under valuation ofstock even when the entry tax levied was includiblein the closing stock of the assessee as per theprovisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act,1961?” We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused theimpugned orders as well as the substantial question of law. A perusal of the order passed by the ITAT reveals thatwhile deleting disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) placed reliance upon an order passed by the Tribunal in IncomeTax Appeal No.3208/Del/2007 titledLakhani Rubber Udyog Ltd.v.CIT (A), Faridabad. Admittedly, the order has been affirmed by thisCourt by dismissal of ITA No.312 of 2010 titled Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Faridabadv. M/s Lakhani Rubber Udyog(P) Ltd.,on08.02.2011. Counsel for the revenue is unable to distinguish thesejudgments or refer to any statutory provisions or raise any argumentthat would enable us to hold to the contrary. The question of law,framed in the present appeal, having been answered against therevenue, as question no. IV in ITA No.312 of 2010 titledCommissioner of Income Tax, Faridabadv. M/s Lakhani Rubber Udyog(P) Ltd.,the present appeal must also meet the same fate. Consequently, the substantial question of law is answeredagainst the revenue in terms of order dated 08.02.2011, passed inITA No.312 of 2010 titledCommissioner of Income Tax, Faridabadv. M/s Lakhani Rubber Udyog(P) Ltd., and the appeal is dismissed. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE October 07, 2014 nt (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE