Ita/322/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Eastman Industries

ITA No. 322 of 2008 (O&M)-|- IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 322 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ....... Appellant *"+%,% M/s Eastman Industries ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’), against the order dated31.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (B), in ITA No.393/CHD/2006, for the assessment year2000-01, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'bleIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified inupholding the decision of CIT (A) deleting theaddition on account of premium paid to ECGC asthis amount was paid for the period from 1.10.1995to 31.10.1997 and not for the year underconsideration2 (ii) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'bleIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified inupholding the decision of CIT (A) to delete the ITA No. 322 of 2008 (O&M) -)| addition on account of custom duty as this amountrelates to the previous years and was also penal innature. Therefore, this liability cannot be allowedin the relevant assessment year in accordance withthe previous of section 14A of I.T. Act? (i11) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'bleIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified inupholding the decision of CIT (A) to delete theaddition on account of disallowance of cashincentives as the assessee has already claimed thisamount for deduction u/s 80 HHC and this amountcannot be allowed in the relevant assessment year inaccordance with the provisions of section 14 A ofLT. Act? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, asthe tax effect involved is less than ©|20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 29 (23.701TEe M (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGEH