Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Ludhiana v. Sh. Rajnish Ahuja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 27 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-I Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Sh. Rajnish Ahuja ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against an order dated 22.08.2012passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'theTribunal') arising out of the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue has framed the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Hon'bleITAT was justified in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A), indeleting the addition of Rs.60,72,118/- made by the AO onaccount of sales to sister concern at lower rates than those tonon-sister concerns?" The assessee filed his return of income on 09.10.2006 showing the income of Rs.5,12,954/-. The Assessing Officer vide its order dated06.11.2008 made addition of Rs.60,72,118/- on account of profit at therate of 15% in respect of the sales made to sister concerns, on account ofdifference in rate of sale as compared to non-sister concerns. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana, videorder dated 30.09.2009 set aside the addition made by the AssessingOfficer. Such order was affirmed by the Tribunal vide its order dated22.08.2012. The learned Tribunal has found that the sister concerns havepaid tax at the rate of 33.6% as compared to 30.6% paid by the assessee.It was also held that the Assessing Officer made addition solely on theground that the assessee has charged less sale price from the sisterconcerns as compared to the non-sister concerns. The provisions ofSection 40-A of the Act could not have been invoked as no payment hasbeen made to the sister concerns for any item of expenditure, which theassessee might have claimed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal foundthat a tax payer can manage his affairs to reduce tax liability within theframe work of law and that the sale of goods at a lesser price to the sisterconcerns than to the non-sister concerns, does not violate any provision oflaw. We do not find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal, raiseany substantial question of law. The assessee has not violated anyprovision of law while making sales to its sister concerns at lesser rate thatto non sister concerns. No interference is called for by this Court in thepresent appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE April 02, 2013G.Arora/Vimal ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE