M/s Shivraj Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 104/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 10423714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K DEY

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.104/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 A.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, KANPUR. VS M/S SHIVRAJ TOBACCO CO. PVT. LTD., 62/154, HARBANS MOHAL, KANPUR. PAN:AAFCS5244N (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. DEY, D.R. RESPONDENT BY 11/02/2015 DATE OF HEARING 17 /03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR DATED 01/08/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.51,68,488.00 ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY. 2. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,13,880.00 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON ALLEGED NON - INTEREST BEARING ADVANCES. 3. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN 2 CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE BY TAKING THE FACTS IN WRONG PERSPECTIVE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11/02/2015. ON THIS DATE, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DUE TO S OME UNAVOIDABLE PERSONAL REASONS. ON EARLIER DATE I.E. ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014 ALSO, SIMILAR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN NONE OF APPLICATION S SUBMITTED, ANY VALID REASON WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE. IN SPITE OF THIS , ON EARLIER OCCASION I.E. ON 20/10/2014, THE ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BUT ON THE SECOND DATE ON 11/10/2014, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED FIT TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID REASON. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. REGARDING THE FIRST GROUND I.E. REGARDING CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS .51,68,488/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS.51,68,448/ - WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THE SA ME CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE . ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 6. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE I.E. DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,13,880/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON ALLEGED NON - INTEREST BEARING ADVANCES, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT INTEREST PAYMENT OF 3 RS.2,22,502/ - IN RESPECT OF BORROWING FOR PAYMENT OF T AX IS ALLOWED BUT DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS IS DISALLOWED. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIVED AND PAID FROM OTHER PARTIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PRESENT YEAR. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,69,502/ - IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN INSPITE OF SPECIFIC QUERY AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSE , THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN INTEREST FREE AND THEREFORE, THIS FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.51,15,674/ - HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THEREFORE, INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. SINCE THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 /03/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR