Unblock India Pvt Ltd, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

ITA 100/KOL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1202 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A(SMC)’ AT KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. No. 100/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Unblock India Pvt. Ltd...............................................................................................................Appellant 11B, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Sova Bazar, Kolkata – 700 006. [PAN: AABCU 3336 K] Vs ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata .................................................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri Anil Kochar & Shri Aryan Kochar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue: Date of concluding the hearing : May 19, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : May 26, 2022 ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 08.12.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 15 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for the delay of 15 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and delay in filing the instant appeal is accordingly condoned. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “i. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad in law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2 I.T.A. No. 100/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Unblock India Pvt. Ltd. ii. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,61,805/- being the amount of amortization in respect of leasehold land termed as stock yard on alleged grounds. iii. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly appreciated the facts of the case and ought to have allowed the amortization expenditure of Rs. 6,61,805/- in respect of leasehold land. iv. For that the Ld. CIT(a) ought not to have confirmed the addition made by the AO. v. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case resulting in confirmation of disallowance made by the AO on alleged grounds. vi. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 4. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee-company furnished its return for the assessment year 2017-18 for a total income (Non Sez Income) of Rs. 71,660/- after claiming an exemption of Rs. 37,64,595/- u/s 10AA. Tax liability was computed under MAT on book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) under CASS module. During proceeding on the examination of the submission made by the assessee, the AO was noticed that in P & L A/c note 9, depreciation on fixed asset was calculated at Rs. 13,56,355/- and claimed deduction. The assessee- company in computation while taken for adjustment of Rs. 6,94,550/- was added leaving out of Rs. 6,61,805/- on stock yard, the ld. CIT(A) is confronted on this issue, the assessee-company gave an evasive and incomplete reply that “The value of stock yard is amortised a cross a period of 10 years. Note 9 of balance sheet, point no. 2 & 3”. However in note 9, the depreciation on stock yard for the year of Rs. 6,61,805/- was duly taken into consideration. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 6,61,805/- was added back to the 3 I.T.A. No. 100/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Unblock India Pvt. Ltd. total income of the assessee in the assessment year 2017-18 and penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Act was initiated separately. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre which was dismissed on 08.12.2021. 6. Now, aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The assessee in this appeal raised six grounds of appeal. However, the core issue that is issue no. 2 by which the assessee challenged the confirming an addition of Rs. 6,61,805/- being the amount of amortization in respect of lease hold land which may be allowed as an expenditure for the assessment year in question. 8. At the time of hearing the ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not get an opportunity to submit its claim before the authority below and one more opportunity may be given to the assessee for the ends of justice and remand back the matter before the AO to examine the issue afresh 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the decision of the ld. CIT(A), we after hearing the rival submission of the parties and on the material available on record, we are of the view that the claim of the assessee need to be examined afresh and accordingly we remit back the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to verify the claim of the assessee and decide it in accordance of law. It is needless to mention that while deciding the issue notice may be given to the assessee to file its objection and documents at the time of hearing fixed by the Assessing Officer. The other grounds of 4 I.T.A. No. 100/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Unblock India Pvt. Ltd. appeal are general and consequential in nature and need not to be adjudicated. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26 th May, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26/05/2022 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Appellant: Unblock India Pvt. Ltd. 2. Respondent: ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata. 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. DR True Copy, By order, Assistant Registrar ITAT Kolkata Benches, Kolkata