Shri M.Satyanarayana , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 01/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5462 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMAMEENAKSHI J
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 37; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 01 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 SHRI M. SATYANARAYANA, NO. 1019, 16 TH MAIN ROAD, 1 ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 029. PAN: AEOPS9683P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (2)(3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHARATH .L, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 13 .0 3 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 . 0 3 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-7, BANGALORE DATED 05.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS 'LOWER AUTHORITIES') IS BAD IN LAW TO THE EXTENT TH E SAME IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE ACTION OF THE HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL 'EX-PARTE' IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW I N DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- BEING COST OF COWS AND CAL VES PURCHASED IN THE AY 2014-15 BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS CAPITAL E XPENDITURE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF GROUND NO . 2, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE COST OF COWS AND CALVES PURCHASED IN THE AY 2014-15 IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDI TURE AS PER SECTION 36(1)(VI) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 01/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. 2 AND NO. 3, TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE COST OF COWS AND CALVES PURCHASED IN THE AY 2014-15 IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDI TURE AS PER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. 6. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW I N DISALLOWING AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,99,850/- INCURRED TOWARDS COMMI SSIONING OF THE BOREWELL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT AFTER COMMISSIONI NG AND ERECTION, THE BOREWELL GOT DRIED UP. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF GROUND NO . 5, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,99,850/- INCURRED TOWARDS COMMISSIONING OF THE BOREWELL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTI ON 37 OF THE ACT. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF GROUND NO . 5, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE EXPEN DITURE OF RS.2,99,850/- INCURRED TOWARDS COMMISSIONING OF THE BOREWELL IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO TAKE THE APPEAL ON RECORD AND GRANT APPROPRIATE RELIEF. THE APPELLANT ALSO PRAYS FOR A PERSONAL HEARING IN THIS MATTER. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT CRAV ES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, VARY, OMIT, SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL, AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE AP PEAL SO AS TO ENABLE TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ACCORDING TO LAW. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) IS EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSES SEE. IN THIS REGARD, HE SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI S. RANGANATH, CA WHO HAS APPEARED BEFORE CIT (A) AS AR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON 04 .10.2017, THE LAST HEARING WAS FIXED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND HE WENT TO THE OFF ICE OF THE CIT (A) ON THAT DATE BUT HE WAS INFORMED BY THE OFFICE STAFF OF CIT (A) THAT CIT (A) WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE OFFICE AND WAS INFORMED THAT HEARING WOULD B E POSTED AGAIN. BUT NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED BY CIT(A) AND THE I MPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT(A) ON 05.10.2017 WITHOUT GRANTING ANY FURTHE R OPPORTUNITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, IT IS APPARENT TH AT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED BY CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER S HOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVID ING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF CIT(A). ITA NO. 01/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONS IDERING THE FACTS AS NOTED ABOVE, I FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO ITS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION IS CAL LED FOR ON MERIT AT THE PRESENT STAGE. HENCE I DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERI T OF THE CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 13 TH MARCH, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.