Bansal Cotspin Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1456/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72837 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , , , SMC, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, SMC BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.1456/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] BANSAL COTSPIN P. LTD. 183, NEW CLOTH MARKET OUTSIDE RAIPURA GATE AHMEDABAD. PAN : AADCB 0307 P /VS. ITO, WARD-1(2) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (%& %& %& %& / APPELLANT) ( (( ('(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT) )* + , #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA . + , #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, SR.DR / + *01/ DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD DECEMBER, 2013 234 + *01/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-1-2014 #5 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDAB AD DATED 24.04.2012. 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,13,995/- BEING DEPRECIATION ON MOTORS CARS AMOUNTING TO RS.1 ,10,928/-, INSURANCE EXPENSES ON CARS AMOUNTING RS.31,871/-, C AR PETROL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,74,169/-, CAR REPAIRING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.7,796/- AND CAR FINANCE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 89,231/- WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND R ELYING ON THE DECISIONS WHICH ARE NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE APPELLANTS CASE. IN ITA NO.1456/AHD/2012 VIEW OF FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS FILED COUPLED WITH LE GAL POSITION, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,13,995/- REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT ALTHOUGH MOTOR CARS WERE IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTORS, BUT FACT RE MAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS PURCHASED THE SAME, AND HAS BEEN SHOWN AS AN ASSET IN ITS BALANCE SHEET YEAR AFTER YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR ITS BUSINESS U SE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X VS ARAVALI FINLEASE LTD. (GUJ), 341 ITR 282 (GUJ). THE LEARN ED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT, 249 ITR 214 (SC). HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND TH E CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). I FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARAVALI FINLEASE LTD. (SU PRA) IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE MOTOR CARS WERE PURCHAS ED BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND WERE SHOWN AS ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHE ET YEAR AFTER YEAR. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE INCURR ED ON THESE MOTOR VEHICLES IN ITS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. IN THESE FA CTS OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDING LY, THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT