M/s. New Balaji Stone Crusher, Kishorpura, Patan, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar V. ITO, Ward Neem ka Thana

ITA 1267/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8660 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA ACIT
• Keywords: Depreciation; Non passing of speaking order; Unabsorbed depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH JESK LH0 KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1267/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S NEW BALAJI STONE CRUSHER VPO- KISHORPURA, VIA-PATAN, NEEM KA THANA, SIKAR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD, SIKAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAIFN 4653 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/07/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 OF LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2014-15. DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION THE H EARING OF THE APPEAL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. THE A SSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. I AM NOT AGREEING WITH THE APPEAL ORDER MADE BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY CIT (A), JAIPUR-3 RD U/S 154 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO NEEM KA THANA, S IKAR U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 1267/JP/2019 M/S NEW BALAJI STONE CRUSHER VS. ITO 2 2. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, AO WAS ALLOWED UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BUT THEREAFTER PASSED ORDER UNDER SECT ION 154/147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DISALLOWED BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSSES. 3. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING, APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y CIT(A) WAS NOT PROVIDE RELIEF AND DISALLOWED BROUGHT FORWA RD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSSES TO ASSE SSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ELIGIBLE TO SET OFF BROUGHT FOR WARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 6,05,426/- (RS. 4,12 ,217/- OF A.Y. 2011-12 AND RS. 1,93,209/- OF A.Y. 2012-13). T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-1 2 ON 30/07/2011 CLAIMING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,67,611/- AND FOR A.Y. 2012-13 FILED RETURN OF INC OME ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE CLAIMING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,93,209/-. IN THE A.Y. 2014-15, ASSESSEE SET OFF B ROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS W ITH THE INCOME UNDER HEAD CAPITAL GAIN ARE GENUINE. 5.ORDER DECIDED BY A.O. AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL ORDER DECIDED BY CIT (A) IS PREJUDICIAL TO ME AND, IF APPEAL IS N OT ALLOWED TO BE PRECEDED IT AMOUNTING TO AGAINST THE LAW. 2. NOBODY HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS DESPITE THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED SUMMARILY BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER, THEREFORE, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF OF THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE. ITA NO. 1267/JP/2019 M/S NEW BALAJI STONE CRUSHER VS. ITO 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND CAREFULLY PERUSED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY IN PARA 4 AS UNDER.:- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE A PPELLANT HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR SUBMISSION IN S UPPORT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL NOR ANY SUPPORTING EV IDENCES WERE PRODUCED BY HIM DESPITE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY HAVING BEEN PROVIDED. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE MAY BE PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUFA LI H.M. ABDULALI (1973) 90 ITR 271 WHEREIN THE HONBLE COUR T HAS HELD THAT HE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT SUBSTITUTE IT OW N JUDGMENT IN PLACE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE A.O. UNLESS IT IS SHOW N THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE A.O. WAS BIASED, IRRATIONAL, VINDIC TIVE OR CAPRICIOUS. IN THE INSTANCE CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION OF THE A.O. WAS ARBITRARY, BIASED, IRRATIO NAL, VINDICTIVE OR CAPRICIOUS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, I FIND NO REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE A.O. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE W AS DISMISSED WITHOUT GIVING A FINDING ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL AND FU RTHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS A NON SPEAKING ORDER. A CCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE SET ASIDE TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE RECORD O F THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ITA NO. 1267/JP/2019 M/S NEW BALAJI STONE CRUSHER VS. ITO 4 DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH BY A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/07/2020. JESK LH0 KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH. C. SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20/07/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S NEW BALAJI STONE CRUSHER, SIKAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD, SIKAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1267/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR