Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Haryana Warehousing Corporation

ITA No.717 of 2077 (O&M IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH 110Income Tax Appeal No.17 of 2017 (O&M)Date of decision: February 20, 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Appellant Versus M/s Haryana Warehousing Corporation .... Responden CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN %%%%% Present:Mr. Yogesn Putney, Aavocatefor the appellant-Revenue. %%%%%% AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) Tne appellant-Revenue nas approached this Court undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) againstthe order dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure A-/) passed by the Income laxAppellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarn (in snort, the Iribunal’)In ITA No.1 /6/CHD/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10, claimed thfollowing substantial questions of law:- “(1Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT Is right in law in dismissing the Appeal ofthe Revenue in view of acceptance of Appeal of theAssessee against order dated 06.03.2014 passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of theincome Tax Act, 1961 Ignoring the aspect that theinvocation of provision of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been held to be valid by the La. ITAT Itself inits earlier order dated 21.10.2015 and the Issue Is pendingadjudication before the Hon bie High Court? (11)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. |ITAT has erred In dismissing the Appeal of thRevenue on the issue of Revision of Pay Scales amountingto Rs.9,48,15,Q000/- claimed as prior period expenses anare not allowable under Section 3/7 of the Income Tax Acc1961 In view of quashing of order under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 on this issue? (111)VVhether on the facts and in the circumstances of thcase, the Ld. ITAT has erred in dismissing the Appeal of theRevenue on the issue of Misc. Expenses amounting toRs.15,16,6/75 claimed as Capital in nature in view ofquasning of order under Section 263 of the Income lax Act,1961 on this issue? 2DAt the outset, learned counsel for the Revenue very fairlyaccepted tnat the iaentical substantial question as claimed in thepresent appeal was dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in,6Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula vs. M/s HaryanaWarehousing Corporation’inITA No.103 of 2016,daeciaed on11.11.2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. It was admitted thatthis Court on merits of the deduction which was sought to bedisallowed under Section 263 of the Act, had adjudicated the issue Infavour of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. In other words, itwas not controverted that the issue has been adjudicated in favour ofthe assessee on merits on both the counts i.e. ‘the provision ofrevision of pay scales and the unabsorbed overhead on capital workunder miscellaneous expense which are the questions in the present ITA No.717 of 2077 (O&M case. However, it was urged that the exercise of the powers of theCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act had beenrigntly Invoked, 3.In view of the above, we do not find that the additionswhich were sought to be made by revising the order of the AssessingOfficer relating to two issues, namely, ‘the provision of revision of payscales and the unabsorbed overnead on capital work undermiscellaneous expenses can be legally sustained and accordingly,the Tribunal’s order does not require any intervention by this Court.Accordingly, the appeal Is dismissed. However, it is clarified that theissue regarding the validity of initiation of proceedings under Section263 of the Act is not being opined as the issue on merits has beenpronounced against tne revenue, (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE February 20, 2017sonia gugnani (RAMENDRA JAIN)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable’ Yes/NoYes/No