R.M. INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

ITA 1455/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93247 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEELIMA V NADKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN A KARIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1455/M/2014 (AY:2010 - 2011 ) R.M. INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. PVT LTD, 9, ROWDON STREET, UDYANCHAL BLDG, FLAT NO.20, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA 700017. / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AABCR6026P ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHETAN A. KARIA, AR / RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEELIMA V. NADKARNI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .07.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3.3.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 36, MUMBAI DATED 12.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,36,670/ - . 2. THE LD CIT (A) FAILS TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT. 3. THE LD CIT (A) FAILS TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER U/S 143(3) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 90,000/ - MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF LOAN FROM ASSOCIATES COMPANIES. 5. THE LD CIT (A ) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. S NO NATURE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 1 RENT OF OFFICE PREMISES 2,400/ - 2 SALARIES TO STAFF 1,02,000/ - 3 AUDIT FEES 3,310/ - 4 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE 2,282/ - 5 DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX ACT. 69,743/ - TOTAL 1,79,735/ - 6. T HE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,42,915/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CESSION OF OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES.' 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CO WAS MISSING IN THE NAME AS APPEARED IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. OTHERWISE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING THE TOTAL LOSS OF 1,77,559/ - ; ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2,36,670/ - ; APPEAL WAS HEARD AND THE NAME WAS CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN FORM NO.35. HE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR RECTIFYING THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE RAISED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GROUP CONCERN VIDE ITA NO. 4474/M/2011 (AY 2008 - 2009), DATED 20.11.2013. MR. KASHINATH TAPURIAH IS THE COMMON DIRECTOR IN THIS CONCERN AND THE ASSESSEE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I FIND CO IS MISS ING IN THE NAME APPEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE OFFICERS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS SUCH AS ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT; DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF BUSINESS EXPENSES; INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ETC ARE ALSO COMPARABLE TO THE ISSUES RAISED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ROBERT MCLEAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, AS REQ UESTED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES, RECTIFY THE MISTAKES IN THE NOMENCLATURE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JULY, 2015. SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 22 .7 .2015 3 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI