Sh. Ajay Goel, Shimla V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 133/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1645 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL VERMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH SOOD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 133/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI AJAY GOEL, VS THE DCIT, GOEL PLAZA, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II RAM BAZAR, CHANDIGARH. SHIMLA. PAN: ABHPG6306K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DINESH SOOD RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL VERMAN DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3 GURGAON DATED 09.01.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS G ROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE SAME ARE , THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 46,453/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDIT URE. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS EARLIER COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 AT A TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 6,27,120/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 46,553/- WAS MADE ON 2 ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND C AR EXPENSES WITH DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL U SAGE. IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 153A, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,553/- MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE . THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE SAME REASONING, CONFIRMED THE A DDITION. 5. AFTER HEARING SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT TH E LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE REFERRED TO PB-10 WHICH IS REVISED RETURN FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND REFERRED TO PB-11 WHICH IS COMPUTA TION OF INCOME IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION ITS ELF, HAS ADDED BACK RS. 46,553/- AS PER SCHEDULE-I ON ACCOUN T OF THE SAME ADDITIONS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A DOUB LE ADDITION ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MOVED APPLIC ATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 WHICH IS PENDING BE FORE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WILL R ECONCILE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSI ONS OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW SINCE ON THE SAME M ATTER, RECTIFICATION APPLICATION IS PENDING BEFORE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH BEC AUSE IF ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADDED BACK THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND FILED THE REVISED RETURN, THEREFORE, THERE MAY NOT BE A DOUBLE ADDITION ON THE ISSUE. W E, 3 THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELO W AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE ALONGWITH RECTIFI CATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 PENDING BEFORE HIM. HE SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE SHALL FILE PROPER DOCUMENTS B EFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONCILE THE ABOVE ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH SEPT., 2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD