The court upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing the deduction of amortization costs, affirming established legal principles regarding tax assessments.

JUDGMENT

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

Order on C.M. Application No.129513 of 2010:

Heard Sri. Sanjay Sareen, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist-State and Sri. Padmesh Jain, the learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act against a common judgment and order dated 04.08.2006, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Full Bench, Lucknow in Second Appeal No.62 of 2005, whereby the four appeals were allowed by a common judgment. The delay in filing three other revisions has been condoned and those revision already stands decided.

3. The learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection in case the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient.

4. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay in filing revision is hereby condoned.

Order on memo of revision:

5. This revision has been filed by the department under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act 1948 against the consolidated judgment / order dated 04.08.2006 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Full Bench, Lucknow for the assessment years mentioned above.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company and engaged in the manufacturing and sale of "Plastic Moulded Parts" which are used in the automobile parts, home appliances parts and electronic parts etc. The assessment was made by the A.O. for the respective assessment years under consideration. However, the A.O. came to know that the assessee has received the dies from the manufacture of automobile parts. The assessee has prepared the invoices by showing the amortization cost of assessable value only. Hence, the A.O. opined that the assessee will have to pay the tax on amortization cost. So, he made the reassessment under Section 21 of Trade Tax Act after giving the notice to the assessee on 27.09.2003. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the first appeal, which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has filed the second appeal before the Tribunal who vide its consolidated order dated 04.08.2006 for all the assessment years under consideration has allowed the claim of the assessee. Not being satisfied, the department has knocked the door of this Court through the present revision.

7. From the record, it appears that the similar issue has come up before this Court in the Trade Tax Revision No. 224, 225 and 226 of 2009 Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow v. Rasandik Engineering India Ltd.

8. Three other trade tax revisions bearing Nos.232 of 2009, 233 of 2009 and 234 of 2009, which were also filed against the common judgment/order dated 04.08.2006, which is impugned in this revision, have already been dismissed by means of a common order dated 31.08.2009, passed by this court in the aforesaid three revisions.

9. Learned counsel for the department has agreed that the facts and circumstances of the instant revisions are identical to the above referred revisions.

10. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the assessee is entitled for the deduction of the Amortization Cost, as per the ratio laid down the case of Auto Lite India Limited v. C. I. t. (2003) 264 ITR 117 Rajasthan. Similar view has been expressed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner Trade Tax v. Ram Ratan Ambrish Kumar 2003 NTN (22) 522 Alld. This case has already been discussed by the Tribunal in its order.

11. In the light of the well settled legal position, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.

12. In the result, the revision filed by the department is hereby dismissed.