The ACIT,(OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1230/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9475 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI SHAILENDRA YADAV,JM, AND MANISH BORAD , AM ./ITA.NO.1230/AHD/2012_ ( / ASSTT YEAR : 2005-06) ACIT, (OSD), CIR.8, AHMEDABAD. VS. SAHAJANAND LAZER TECHNOLOGY LTD.48-A, ARVIND ESTATE, LBS MAR BAPUNAGAR, AHMEDABAD PAN AAGCS 1983B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY: MRS. SONIA KUMAR, SR.DR / RESPONDENT BY: NONE / DATE OF HEARING 22/2/2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22-02-2016 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 9/6/2008 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 200 5-06. 2. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE REVENUE, AS PER GROUNDS OF APP EAL ARE AS FOLLOWS :- 1). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, A HMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.7,93,263/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPE NSES. 2). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME-TAX (A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATI ON AMOUNTING TO RS.1,82,339/-. 3). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME-TAX {A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN TAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N ON PLANT & MACHINERY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.41 ,700/-. ITA.NO.1230/AHD/2012 - 2 4). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, A HMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST E XPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.6,09,367/-. 5). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME-TAX(A)-XLV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEM ENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,50,000/-. 6) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME-TAX{A)-XIV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY EXPE NSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,16,833/-. 7) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF !NCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE AN D TELEPHONE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS,12,84,029/-. 8) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF HOTEL EX PENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.40,000/-. 9). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPH ELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10). IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS PRESENTED ON 6/6/2012. ON 10.12.20 15 THE CBDT HAS ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS BEARING NO. 21/2015 PROHIBITING I TS SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES FROM FILING OF THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNA L AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE APPLIC ABLE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, MEANING THEREBY, THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE ON PENDING APPEALS ALSO. THE TAX EFFECT ON DELETION OF T HIS TOTAL ADDITION WOULD BE LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE PRESENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED BEING TREATED TO BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. THE CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRU CTIONS. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE, WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL, SUCH FACT ORS WERE NOT CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, IN CASE, ON RE-VERIFICATION AT TH E END OF THE AO, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE OR IT FALLS W ITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS ITA.NO.1230/AHD/2012 - 3 PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTION, THEN THE DEPARTMENT WI LL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER. SUCH APPLICATIO N SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( SHAILENDRA YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( MANISH BORAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 22/02/2016 ! '!/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. &$% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. '(( ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. !-. , ,012 /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. .3 45 / GUARD FILE. ) ' / BY ORDER, ' (0 (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. : 22/2/2016. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 22/2/2016 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BA CK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22 /2/16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER