Ita/172/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii v. Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corp Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.172 of 2014 (O&M)Date of decision: 18.9.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh Vs, ..-.-- Appe M/s Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited .....Responde CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. inThis appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section|260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against the orderdated 25.10.2013, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ (in short, “the Tribunal’) in ITANo.811/Chandi/2008 for the assessment years 2010-11, claiming following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in upholding the decisionof CIT(A) in deleting the addition of<81,21,000/- made by theAO by treating the land development expenditure as capital innature as against revenue expenses? A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy ITA No.172 of 2014 (O&M) involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee is engagedin the business of farming activities. It had carried out farming activities atthe farm situated in Ladhowal and claimed expenses ofLC90,21,638/- fordevelopment of land. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) ofthe Act on 31.12.2012, Annexure A.1 at income ot |<a1,13,13,618/- againstthe returned income ofLC31,92,612/-. Following the order of the earlieryears, the Assessing Officer disallowed amount ofa81,21,000/- out of totalexpenses of<a90,21,638/- treating the same as capital expenses. Aggrievedby the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) |CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 5.5.2013, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal deleting the addition. Not satisfied with the order,the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 25.10.2013,Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appealby the revenue, 3,We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue andperused the record. 4Learned counsel for the revenue fairly accepted that theTribunal while adjudicating the issue had relied upon its own order in ITANo.614/Chandi/2008 relating to the assessment year 2005-06 against whichITA No.163 of 2009 has been decided today by a Separate order. In view ofour order of even date passed in ITA No.163 of 2009 whereby appeal of therevenue has been dismissed, the present appeal stands dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge| (Fateh Deep Singh)Judge|