ACIT, CHENNAI V. Lonestar Industries, CHENNAI

ITA 1263/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68705 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1263/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VIII, CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) VS M/S. LONESTAR INDUSTRIES, OLD NO. 134 (NEW NO. 252), ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, PARRYS, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN: AAAFL 0165 B] (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI T.N. BETGERI, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 24-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-09-2013 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IX, CHEN NAI DATED 19-02-2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 200 7-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2007-08 ON 26-10-2007 DECLARING ITS INCOME AS ` 1,45,34,845/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTIC E U/S. 143(2) OF I.T.A. NO. 1263/MDS/2013 2 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18-09-2008. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDI TIONS IN THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESS EE CARRIED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(AP PEALS) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING ADDI TIONS OF ` 22,07,071/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS R EPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), TH E REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE AS REVE NUE WHEREAS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE SAME TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THE REPAIRS AND MAIN TENANCE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE IN NATURE ON THE BASIS OF LE ASE DEEDS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE SAID D OCUMENTS WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO OP PORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SA ID LEASE DEEDS. THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. I.T.A. NO. 1263/MDS/2013 3 4. A PERUSAL OF THE FILE SHOWS THAT NOTICE OF THE A PPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON 14-06-2013 ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 36. DE SPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. 5. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE LEASE DEEDS OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BE FORE THE CIT(APPEALS) BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME. I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPE ALS). APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 TNMM COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR