Income Tax Appeal (Itl) v. M/S Kasturchand Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Income Tax Appeal (itl) No. 29 OF 2013 (The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax v. M/s Kasturchand Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coramappearances, Court’s orders or directionsand Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Anand Parchure Advocate for the Appellant. ... Coram : B.P .Dharmadhikari & S.B. Shukre, JJ.Date : 20th JUNE, 2013. Submission is, as incentive was availed after several years of establishment of unit, it ought to have been treated as revenue receipt and ITAT has failed in accepting it as capital incentive. We find that the memo of appeal itself while raising this question states that it is necessary to ascertain whether incentive was given to enable a new industry being set up or it was given for smooth operation of existing industry. However, thereafter it has been urged that as the amount was received after the commencement of the industry, the same needs to be accepted as capital receipt. The finding of ITAT that date of disbursement cannot be a decisive factor is said to be erroneous. The ITAT has noted that the Assessment Officer did not challenge the basic fact that said capital incentive was granted for setting up a new unit in the backward area. In absence of challenge to this fact, ITAT has held that the grant was a capital incentive and it could not have been treated as revenue grant. The incentive scheme is neither produced before us by the appellant nor any ground on its basis is being urged. The view of ITAT therefore cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Further question is about the propriety of re-opening of assessment in the present facts. The assessment has been re-opened only because of the fact that the Assessee credited capital incentive of Rs. twenty lacs directly to the balance-sheet. In view of the answer to the first question as recorded above, it is apparent that the aspect is rendered only academic. No substantial question of law therefore arises. Appeal dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE