D.b.income Tax Appeal v. M/S. Banswara Synthetic Ltd

(1) D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.136/2007 CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Banswara Synthetic Ltd. (2) D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.154/2007 CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Banswara Synthetic Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT :::15[th] January 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARIHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Johari for the respondent . <><><> BY THE COURT:(Per Hon’ble Dinesh Maheshwari),J. These two appeals, arising out of common order dated22.12.2006 as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Jodhur Bench, Jodhpur affirming the concerning orders as passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur in respect ofappeals relating to the assessment years 1996-1997 and 2001-2002,have been admitted on identical nature substantial questions of lawwith only difference as regards the amount involved. The order of admission with question as formulated inD.B.Income Tax Appeal No.136/2007 concerning the assessmentyear 1996-1997 could be noticed as under:- “It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant thatthe earlier order of the ITAT relied upon in the impugned order hasalready been challenged by the Revenue before this Court by wayof D.B.I.T.A. No.23/2005, which has been admitted on 7.4.2005.In that view of the matter, this appeal is also admitted by framingthe following substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case thelearned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of therevenue and confirming the order of the CIT(A) regardingdeletion of addition of Rs.52,34,789/- made by the AO onaccount of disallowance on lease rent ignoring the substantialfinding given by the AO that lease agreement is that of afinancing one and not the operational, treat the costs of theleased assets as loan amount and lease rental as interest?” This appeal be connected with the files aforesaid D.B.I.T.A.No.23/2005 and 54/2007.” In Appeal No.154/2007, concerning the assessment year2001-2002, the question is similar one except the amount involvedi.e., Rs.13,90,128/-. These appeals were admitted, inter alia, withreference to D.B.I.T.A. Nos.23/2005 and 54/2007. In fact, thecommon order in the present cases has been passed with referenceto the order that had been the subject-matter of Appeal No.54/2007. So far Appeal No.54/2007 is concerned, which involvedessentially the same questions about the nature of lease and as towhether the lease rentals were allowable as business expenditure,we have considered the matter in detail in a separate judgmentdelivered today; and, with reference to the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in CIT Vs. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd.: (1998) 231 ITR308 and of this Court in Rajshree Roadways Vs. Union of India &Ors.: 263 ITR 206 (Raj.), we have held the findings of the CIT (A)and the Tribunal, allowing lease rental as business expenditure, notcalling for any interference. The considerations, reasonings and observations in thejudgment delivered in Appeal No.54/2007 equally apply to thepresent cases too. Therein, we have ultimately held as under:- So far Appeal No.54/2007 is concerned, which involvedessentially the same questions about the nature of lease and as towhether the lease rentals were allowable as business expenditure,we have considered the matter in detail in a separate judgmentdelivered today; and, with reference to the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in CIT Vs. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd.: (1998) 231 ITR308 and of this Court in Rajshree Roadways Vs. Union of India &Ors.: 263 ITR 206 (Raj.), we have held the findings of the CIT (A)and the Tribunal, allowing lease rental as business expenditure, notcalling for any interference. The considerations, reasonings and observations in thejudgment delivered in Appeal No.54/2007 equally apply to thepresent cases too. Therein, we have ultimately held as under:- “In the ultimate analysis, in the present case where the respondent-assessee has been found to be essentially a hirer after appreciation ofevidence on record, in our view, no interference in the findings on themixed question of law and facts as rendered by the Appellate Authorityand the Tribunal is called for. The features as noticed by the CIT(A) in hisorder make it clear that the lease rentals paid on the hired machinerywere allowable as business expenditure for the year in question.”assessee has been found to be essentially a hirer after appreciation ofevidence on record, in our view, no interference in the findings on themixed question of law and facts as rendered by the Appellate Authorityand the Tribunal is called for. The features as noticed by the CIT(A) in hisorder make it clear that the lease rentals paid on the hired machinerywere allowable as business expenditure for the year in question.” Thus, following the decision in Appeal No.54/2007, both theseappeals are also dismissed in the same terms. No costs. (ARUN BHANSALI),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. cpgoyal/- D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.154/2007 CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Banswara Synthetic Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT :::15[th] January 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARIHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Johari for the respondent . Following the decision in Appeal No.54/2007, the presentappeal stands dismissed in the same terms [vide common judgmentmade in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.136/2007: CIT, Udaipur Vs.M/s. Banswara Synthetic Ltd.] (ARUN BHANSALI),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. cpgoyal/-