Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Lakhani Marketing Inc

ITA No. 3 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc. ITA No. 3 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2010 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant,in ITA No.3 of 2009.in ITA No.3 of 2009. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant, in ITA Nos. 474, 515 of 2006, 378, 432 of 2007. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 3 of 2009, 474, 515 of2006 and 378 and 432 of 2007 as similar issues of law are involvedtherein. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 3 of2009. 2.The revenue in the present appeal had claimed thefollowing two substantial questions of law:- “A.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that theactual date of payment is within the grace periodpermissible under the Employee's Provident FundScheme, 1952, especially when the Income Tax Act,the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that theactual date of payment is within the grace periodpermissible under the Employee's Provident FundScheme, 1952, especially when the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not talk about the grace period for makingpayments in relevant funds and it talks only about the“due date” by which the assessee is required to makethe payments in relevant funds? B. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding theorder of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance ofRs.5,36,120/- on account of interest free advancesgiven to its sister concerns, especially when the onusis on the assessee to prove 'commercial expediency'behind giving interest free loans and as to whichparticular fund was utilized by it to make advances tothe sister concern and the assessee had failed toprove it, and the Hon'ble ITAT has simply held thatinterest free loans were given to sister concernswhich are into the same business, no specific detailshave been given in this regard and has passed ageneral and non-speaking order?” 3.This Court on 3.3.2009, while issuing notice of motion byrecording a detailed order had held that only question at serial No. Aarises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal wasthereafter admitted on 23.4.2009. 4.The facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in theinstant appeal are that the assessee filed its return on 29.10.2004 forthe assessment year 2004-05 declaring an income of Rs.1,62,34,517/-.The assessment was completed on 26.12.2006 at an income of ITA No. 3 of 2009 Rs.1,75,45,385/- including addition of Rs.7,08,742/- made on account oflate payment of employees' contribution to PF and disallowance ofinterest of Rs.5,36,120/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short “the Act”). Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed anappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafterreferred to as “the CIT(A)”] who vide order dated 13.9.2007 whiledeleting the additions allowed a total relief of Rs.12,68,743/-. Againstthe order of the CIT (A), the department approached the Tribunal whovide order dated 4.4.2008 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the presentappeal by the revenue. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that onlyquestion at serial A now survives and the issue raised therein finallystands settled by the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) andthis Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 (The Commissionerof Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Rai Agro Industries Ltd. Sangrur),decided on 30.11.2010 against the revenue and in favour of theassessee. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that onlyquestion at serial A now survives and the issue raised therein finallystands settled by the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) andthis Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 (The Commissionerof Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Rai Agro Industries Ltd. Sangrur),decided on 30.11.2010 against the revenue and in favour of theassessee. 7.In view of the above, the substantial question of law at 'A'above is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE ITA No. 3 of 2009 -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 474 of 2006 Date of Decision: 3.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ....Appellant. Versus M/s Mohini Hosiery Mills ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. None for the assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see the detailed order of even date recorded in ITA No. 3 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 3, 2010gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE ITA No. 3 of 2009 -6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 515 of 2006 Date of Decision: 3.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ....Appellant. Versus M/s Grewal Hotels (P) Ltd. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. None for the assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see the detailed order of even date recorded in ITA No. 3 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 3, 2010gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE ITA No. 3 of 2009 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 378 of 2007 Date of Decision: 3.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ....Appellant. Versus M/s Deepak Builders ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. None for the assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see the detailed order of even date recorded in ITA No. 3 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 3, 2010gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE ITA No. 3 of 2009 -8- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 432 of 2007 Date of Decision: 3.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ....Appellant. Versus M/s Mohini Hosiery Mills ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. None for the assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see the detailed order of even date recorded in ITA No. 3 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 3, 2010gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE ITA No. 3 of 2009 C.M. No. 30889-CII of 2010 INI.T.A. No. 3 of 2009 -9- Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the applicant-respondent. **** ....Appellant. Versus M/s Mohini Hosiery Mills ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. None for the assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see the detailed order of even date recorded in ITA No. 3 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 3, 2010gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE ITA No. 3 of 2009 C.M. No. 30889-CII of 2010 INI.T.A. No. 3 of 2009 -9- Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the applicant-respondent. **** This is an application under Section 151 of the Code ofCivil Procedure for disposal of the appeal in terms of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AlomExtrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306. Notice of this application to counsel for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate accepts notice. With the consent of the parties, the main appeal is taken up for hearing today. CM stands disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 3, 2010gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE