M/s.Laxmi Polychem India Limited, Gadag V. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli

ITA 1420/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9389 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARESH SAKA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1420(BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 07) M/S LAXMI POLYCHEM INDIA LIMITED, C/O A. RAGHAVENDRA RAO & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, VAKIL CHAWL, GADAG - 582101 PAN : AAACL6249F APPELLANT VS THE ACITO, CIRCLE 2 (1), HUBLI RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI NARESH SAKA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 20-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-09-2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A), HUBLI DATED 31.03.2016 FOR A. Y. 2 006 07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 2 GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT PENALTY OF RS. 80,000/- IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U /S 271 (1) (C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF DATE OF HEARING HAVING BEEN INDICATED IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL AND THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND HENCE, THIS APPEAL IS HEARD EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS PER THE ORDER OF CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT (A) THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM ARE THE SAME W HICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. I ALSO FIND THAT IN THE PENALT Y ORDER, THE A.O. HAS REPRODUCED ITA NO. 1420BANG) 2016 2 THE WRITTEN REPLY DATED 24.04.2010 FILED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. AS PER THE SAME, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 224,784/- RELATING T O A. Y. 2001 02 IN SPITE OF THIS FACT THAT SUCH UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 224,7 84/- RELATING TO A. Y. 2001 02 WAS ALREADY SET OFF IN A.Y. 2005 06 AND HOW THE N ON EXISTING CLAIM IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS A CLERICAL ERROR. THE ENTIRE EXPLANATION IS THIS THAT DEPRECIATION AS PER I T RULES WAS REDUCED AND DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOKS WAS NOT ADDED BACK BUT FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BECAUSE AS PER THE COPY OF REVIS ED COMPUTATION MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, BOOK DEPRECIATION OF RS. 477,903/- WAS VERY MUCH ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CLAIMING DEPRECIATION AS PER I T RU LES RS. 452,158/- AND COPY OF ORIGINAL COMPUTATION IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. BUT THE RETURNED INCOME IS RS. 460,780/- AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ASSESSED INCOME IS RS. 738,483/- AFTER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 52,920/-. HENCE THE NET DIFFERE NCE IN THE RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME BEFORE THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 42, 920/-, IS RS. 224,784/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 224,784/- RELATING TO A. Y. 2001 02. NO SUBMISSION IS MADE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION TH AT THIS CLAIM IS A CLERICAL ERROR. HENCE, I FEEL THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THEREFORE, I DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : .09.2016 AM* ITA NO. 1420BANG) 2016 3 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SECTION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER