M/s. Hally Comet Electrodes Pv Ltd, V. ITO, Lucknow

ITA 109/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 10923714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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.109/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 05 M/S HALLY COMET ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., ISMAILPUR, DEVA SHARIF ROAD, BARABANKI. PAN:AAACH9317G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE - IV(4), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 /08/2014 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) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 13/08/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE L D. C. I. T. (APPEALS) - II , LUCKNOW ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,41,000 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS TAKEN FROM 135 PERSONS. 1.1 THE LD. C. I. T. (APPEALS) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT DETAILS REGARDING IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS, CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 2. THE LD. C. I. T. (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.60 , 700 / - UNDER THE HEAD 'INSURANCE EXPENSES' 2 INSPITE OF THE FACT EXPENS ES WERE INCURRED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 3. THE LD. C. I. T. (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.20,000 / - BEING DISALLOWANCE OF OUT OF 'TELEPHONE EXPENSES' FOR PERSONAL USE, INSPITE OF THE FACT, THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING INSPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE 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. WE FIND THAT REGARDING FIRST ISSUE I.E. AD DITION OF RS.25.41 LAC, THIS FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A) THAT IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE PERSONS FROM BIHAR, THAT TOO AGRICULTURISTS, WOULD INVEST THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY IN A CONCERN OF BARABANKI WHICH IS SHOWING LOSSES AND IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT INTO ANY PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND. THERE WAS NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF CIT(A). HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. THE SECOND ADDITION UPHELD BY CIT(A) IS RS.60,700/ - OUT OF INSURANCE PAYMENTS. IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD AND ON THIS BASIS HE HAD UPHELD THIS ADDITION. THERE WAS NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF CIT(A). HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 3 7. THE THIRD ADDITION UPHELD BY CIT(A) IS RS.20,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE IN CASE OF A COMPANY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PE R THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON AND ENGG. CO. VS. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (GUJ). HENCE, THIS ADDITION IS DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 2 /08/2014. *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