Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 107/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4303 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE; FACTS IN LAW
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.107/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.107/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 UTTAR PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION E-23, KAMLA NAGAR TOWNSHIP, KANPUR. PAN:AAABU0035B VS. DCIT-1, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 24/11/2015 RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED AND FACTS IN LAW AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO WITHOU T GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2. BECAUSE THERE BEING NO NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOT ICE OF HEARING ISSUED BY CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING T HE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 3. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147/143 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS, THERE ARE N O REASONS FORMING BELIEF THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE RE-ASSESSMENT FRAMED BE QUASHED. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 09 /0 6 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/07/2016 I.T.A. NO.107/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 2 4. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), IS A NON - SPEAKING ORDER, NOT DECIDED IN MERITS OF THE CASE, IS BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. 5. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN INDIRECTLY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 17,78,624/- INC URRED ON SPORT ACADEMY WAS NOT INCURRED ON THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. 6. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS INDIRECTLY UPHELD THE ACT ION OF THE AO IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL, IN AS MUCH AS:- I. THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN INFLUENCED BY PERVERSE AND MISCONCEIVED FINDING RECORDED IN A.Y. 2004-05 TO TH E EFFECT THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 17,78,624/- WAS INCURRED FOR RUNNING OF KAMLA CLUB ETC. II. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PURPOS E OF ACCUMULATION WAS MET BY INCURRING THE SAID EXPENDIT URE ON ESTABLISHMENT AND RUNNING OF CRICKET ACADEMY AT RENTED PLACED IN AS MUCH AS THE RESOLUTION FOR ACCUMULATION HAS BEEN MIS-APPRECIATED. III. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT P URPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT FOR RUNNING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CRICKET ACADEMY AND THE ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN WAS COMPOSITE ACCOUNT. IV. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO CESSATION OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 11(3)(B) NOR THERE WAS CESSATION OF ACCUMUL ATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 11(3)(A) OF THE ACT U NDER LAW IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. V. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,53,089/- AS MADE BY THE LD. AO AFTER DISREGARDING THE JUDGMENTS OF HIGH COURTS IS TOTALLY MISCONCEIVED UNDER LAW IN TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT NONE APPEARED BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE WITHOUT I.T.A. NO.107/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 3 ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERIT. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL SUMMARILY WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERIT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL ON MERIT AS THE CIT(A) IS NOT CONFERRED WITH THE POWER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO DECIDE THE APPEAL SUMMARILY . WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MERI T BY PASSING A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/07/2016) SD/. SD/. ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( P. K. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:27/07/2016 *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