Neway International, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1218/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5587 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC , CHANDIGARH . . , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ./ ITA NO.1218/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 NEWAY INTERNATIONAL, 939/1, SHERPUR ROAD, SHERPUR KALAN, RAILWAY CROSSING, LUDHIANA. THE I.T.O., WARD-1(5), LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AAGNF2513D /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GURSIMRAN SINGH, OFFICE EMPLOYEE ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.02.2019 /ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A)). 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATIO N FOR ADJOURNMENT BUT NO REASON HAS BEEN ASSIGNED FOR SEE KING THE ADJOURNMENT, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS REJECTED. 3. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ARE BOTH THE AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND ARE UNTENABLE IN LAW. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS JOB WORKER OF TE XTILE CLOTH .THE ASSESSEE HAS INSTALLED NUMBER OF MACHINES FOR PROCESSING, WASHING AND TUBLING THE CLOTH .THE GR EY ITA NO.1218/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 2 CLOTH IS CONVERTED INTO FINISHED GOODS AFTER PROCESS ING. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.63037/- ON NEW MACHINERY INSTALLED DURING THE YEAR. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATI ON ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AND NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM WAS ONLY CONTRACTOR OF PROCESSING AND WASHING OF TEXTILES AND NOT A MANUFACTURER. 3. AS JOB WORK AND PROCESSING OF TEXTILE CLOTH IN THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURING AS SHAPE OF PRODUCT CHANGES AFTER JOB WORK. SO A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOW ING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 4. THE AFORESAID ORDER OF RECTIFICATION HAS BEEN CHALLENGED VIDE THE INSTANT APPEAL IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT JOB WORK AND PROCESSING OF TEXTILE CLOTH IS IN THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURING AS THE SHAPE OF THE PRODUCT CHANGES AFTER JOB WORK. IT HAS, THUS, B EEN AVERRED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, THE APPELLANT REFUSED TO ATTEND ON ALL THE DATES FIXED F OR HEARING OF THE CASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE HEARIN G NOTICES WERE DULY INTIMATED TO THE APPELLANT FIRM IN ADVANCE. ON EVERY DATE, REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED WHICH WAS NOT ACTUATED BY ANY PRESSING REASON. THE LAST ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT ON 05/07/2018, WHICH WAS DECLINED AS PER THE EARLIER INTIMATION THAT IF NO REPRESENTATION IS RECEIVED ON 5 TH OF JULY, IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOTHING MORE TO ADD EXCEPT WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE 'STATEMENT OF FACTS'. IT HAS THEREFORE BEEN DECI DED TO DISPOSE OF THE INSTANT APPEAL WITHOUT ANY FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE APPELLANT. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. SR.DR STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NON-COOPERATIVE AND DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), SO, THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) ITA NO.1218/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 3 SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE KEPT SEEKING ON ADJOURNMENT FOR NO APPARENT GOOD REASON. HE DID NOT MENTION AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR SEEKING THE ADJOURNMENT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. I, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORE SAID FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASI DE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FIE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO BE D ECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.02.2019. SD/- (N.K.SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT '# /DATED: 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 * * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.1218/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12 4