Horizon Microtexh Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1053/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 105320514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMLENDU VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: F B ANDHYARUJINA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 263; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1053/AHD/2012 A.Y: 2007-08 HORIZON MICROTECH PVT. LTD. PLOT NO. 311, ROAD NO. 4A, GIDC KATHWADA, AHMEDABAD 382430 PAN : AAACHF4762M VS ACIT, CIRCLE 4, AHMEDABAD (ASSESSEE) (REVENUE) REVENUE BY : SHRI VIMLENDU VERMA, CIT D R ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI F. B. ANDHYARUJINA, A.R. / // / DATE OF HEARING : 08/08/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/08/2013 / O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT, II AHMEDABAD U/S 263 DATED 26.03.2012 FOR A.Y. 2007 08. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSES SEE BEFORE US THAT THE FIRST NOTICE U/S 263 WAS ISSUED BY THE CIT ON 07.02.2012. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS NOTICE, THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LEARNED CI T WERE A) LESSER INTEREST INCOME DECLARED AS INTEREST RECEIVED FROM ESSAR STE EL LIMITED AS COMPARED TO INTEREST AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AND B) AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40 (A) (IA) OUT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 264,311/-. HE SUBM ITTED THAT SECOND NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY HIM ON 09.03.2012 AND IN THIS NOTICE, HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 35,000/- SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S 40 (A) (IA) AND TWO MORE ISSUES WERE RAISED BY HIM ABOUT ALLOWABILITY OF ADD ITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. ITA NO.1053/AHD/2012 - 2 - 675,829/- AND ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB RS . 37,04,591/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED REPLY TO THE CIT FOR BOTH THESE NOTICES BUT HE HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO REFRAME THE ASSESSM ENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CRYPTIC BUT PROPER ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE A.O. AND HE HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS. HENCE, ORDER U/S 263 SHOULD BE QUASHED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT ORDER U/S 263 IS VALID, DIRECTIO N OF THE LEARNED CIT SHOULD BE MODIFIED AND THE A. O. BE DIRECTED TO CONFINE HIS R EASSESSMENT TO ISSUES RAISED BY CIT IN THE SECOND NOTICE ONLY BECAUSE THERE CANN OT BE TWO NOTICES U/S 263 AT ANY ONE POINT OF TIME. 3. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED CIT DR SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF CIT U/S 263. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SECOND NOTICE IS IN CONTINU ATION OF THE FIRST NOTICE AND THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT IS VALID. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY, NO EN QUIRY WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ABOUT ALLOWABILITY OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND D EDUCTION U/S 80IB. EVEN NO DETAIL OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE EVEN AFTER SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH, LEARNED AR COULD NOT SHOW THAT IT WAS FILED. ABOUT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ALSO, HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ALLOWED IN AN EARLIE R YEAR BUT HE COULD NOT SHOW THAT EVEN THIS BASIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE A.O. A S TO THE PRESENT YEAR IS WHICH NUMBER OF YEAR ABOUT THIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB. HENCE, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT U/S 263 IS VALID AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME BECAUSE IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WIT HOUT PROPER ENQUIRY, THE SAME IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL.