Vision Logistics Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1547/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2645 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: G SEETHARAMAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . ' # , $ #% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . /ITA NO.1547/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 VISION LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., C/O S. VENKATRAM & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 218, T.T.K., ROAD, CHENNAI 600 018. PAN AABCV2338O ( /APPELLANT) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(4), CHENNAI - 34. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. SEETHARAMAN, CA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B.KOLI, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2016 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.01.2016 & / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 28 .3.2014. - - ITA 1547/15 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL IS THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 26,03,477/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, 1961. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SHRI N. PALANIVELU V. ITO IN ITA NO.618/MDS/2015 DATED 2 9.4.2015, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (VISAKHAPATNAM) AND JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICE S (P) LTD IN ITA NO.122 OF 2013 DATED 09.7.2013 HELD THAT SEC 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THERE IS NO OUTSTANDING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA IN RESPECT OF THESE PAYMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING EXPENSES OR SCHEDULE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS SHOWING WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE CLOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR EITHER IN THE NAME OF THE PARTY OR OUTSTANDING EXPENSES. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. - - ITA 1547/15 3 4. FURTHER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE IMPUGNED M OUNT IS NOT OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE CLOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES EITHER A S OUTSTANDING EXPENSES OR AS SUNDRY CREDITORS, THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. THIS GROUND IS REMITTE D BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 14 TH OF JAN., 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $% & ) ( ' ( ) $ ) *%+,-,./01,2345,.62,+778,293 : ;< /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ;<=>>70.?,.?@A1BA2 ': /CHENNAI, C; /DATED, THE 14 TH JAN., 2016. MPO* ;D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H3 /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. JLM /GF.