Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, ... vs Dcit, CircleIi , Allahabad on 7 October, 2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.142/Alld./2017 Assessment Year: 200708 Bharat Pumps & Compressors Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Naini, v. Income Tax, CircleII, Allahabad , U.P. 211010 Aayakar Bhawan 38, M.G. Marg, Allahabad, U.P. PAN:AAACB9309A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Smt. Tanu Singhal C.A. Respondent by: Smt. Nidhi Verma Singh, CITD.R. Date of hearing: 09.09. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 07.10.2021 ORDER PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.142/Alld./2017, is directed against an appellate order dated 17.03.2017 in Appeal No.12/DCIT/RII/Alld/15 16 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Allahabad (hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"),for assessment year(ay):200708, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from an assessment order dated 31 st March, 2015 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") under Section 147 read with Section 143 (3) of the Incometax Act,1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") for ay: 200708 .We have heard both the parties through Video Conferencing mode through Virtual Court. 1 ITA No.142/ALLD/2017 Assessment Year: 200708 Bharat Pumps and Compressors Limited, Naini, Allahabad v. DCIT, CircleII, Allahabad 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 142/Alld./2017 for ay: 200708, in memo of appeal filed with IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench , Allahabad (hereinafter called " the tribunal") , reads as under: "1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of writeback of Government Loan to the tune of Rs. 7292.72 lakhs being waiver of loan duly approved by the Ministry of heavy Industries and Public Enterprises as revival package for financial restructuring of sick Public Sector Enterprises, without making any reference to the relevant section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which he has made such addition which is a mandatory practice for making any such disallowances or additions. 2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer by referring to certain decisions of the Court, the facts of which are clearly different from the facts of the appellant's case. 3. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts to confirm the addition Rs. 7292.72 lacks made by the Assessing officer on account of writeback of Government Loans routed through Profit & Loss Accounts (Below the Line) by treating this writeback of NonPlan Government Loan as ordinary trading transaction though according to the accounting principles and practices such write backs are not ordinary trading transactions or revenue receipts either. Further, the phrase "Plan and "NonPlan" has nowhere been defined under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and this nomenclature is basically adopted by the Government for their budget estimates and allocation thereof for sanctioning loans Public Sector Enterprises. 4. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in charging interest u/s 234A & 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Because the order of Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals), Allahabad was bad in law and on facts." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking(PSU), engaged in manufacturing of Pumps , Compressors and Gas Cylinders. The assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act on 28.10.2007 with Revenue declaring 'Nil' Income , which return of income was originally scrutinized by Revenue u/s