VGA Digital Printers Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 9, Pune

ITA 1202/PUN/2018

AI Insights

The case involves VGA Digital Printers Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in graphic designing and digital printing, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune. The dispute centered on the reassessment for the assessment year 2004-05, where the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation and bad debts claimed by the company. Initially, the company filed a return declaring a loss, which was later reassessed after a notice under section 148 was issued, leading to the disallowance of certain claims. The ITAT had previously set aside the assessment to allow the Assessing Officer to address the objections raised by the company, which were ultimately dismissed, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137065 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1202/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2004-05 VGA Digital Printers Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3 rd Floor, Mandke Business Centre, 652, Narayan Peth, ABC Chowk, Pune- 411030. PAN : AABCV7000K Vs. ACIT, Circle-9, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 8, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 27.04.2018 for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of graphic designing and digital printing. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2004-05 was filed on 01.11.2004 declaring loss of Rs.21,42,692/-. Against the original return of income, the assessment was Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 21.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2022 ITA No.1202/PUN/2018 2 completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 13, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.10.2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at loss of Rs.20,67,692/- after making disallowance of Rs.75,000/-. Subsequently, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 17.03.2008, as the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that the income had escaped assessment, as the depreciation was allowed at 100% on the assets taken over by it from its predecessor and claim of bad debts of Rs.11,67,897/- was wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Subsequently, the assessment was completed on 16.12.2008 after disallowing depreciation of Rs.28,06,571/- and bad debts of Rs.11,67,897/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 12.01.2010 confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal before the ITAT, the ITAT vide order dated 29.11.2013 had set-aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh after disposing of the objections raised by the appellant against the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. 4. Pursuant to the order of the ITAT, the Assessing Officer issued notices requiring the appellant to make the submissions and ITA No.1202/PUN/2018 3 the appellant had submitted its objection for reopening the assessment before the Assessing Officer. The said objection has been disposed of by the Assessing Officer as set out in para 4.1 to 9 of the assessment order and completed the assessment reiterating the additions made in the re-assessment order. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) challenging that the order passed pursuant to the ITAT order is bad in law, inasmuch as, the Assessing Officer had failed to consider the objection raised by the assessee. The said ground of appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by making reference to the relevant paragraphs of the assessment order and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of several notices of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR. 8. On going through the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reasoned one and there is no material on record to demonstrate that the appellant is entitled for deduction ITA No.1202/PUN/2018 4 warranting a different view on the additions made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 30 th day of November, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 th November, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-8, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.