Dr. Agam Shrivastava, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Baroda

ITA 1567/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6187 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASOON KABRA HEARING CONCLUDE
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITI
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1567 / AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 05 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] ITA NO. 1567 /AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 05 - 06 DR. AGAM SHRIVASTAVA ..... .......... . APPELLANT URMI IMAGING CENTRE, 43A, SAMPA T RAO COLONY, ALKAPURI, VADODARA 390 007. [PAN: AFRPS 0431 F] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BARODA. .. ......... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY ADITI FOR THE A PPELLANT PRASOON KABRA FOR THE R E SPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 2 0.04. 2017 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21 . 0 4 .2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM: 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST EX - PARTE ORDER DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2014, P ASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143( 3 ) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05 - 06 . 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOWS : - 1.00 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON WRONG PLEA THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED ON 29.01.2014 TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT . YOUR APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE FOR HEARING FIXED ON 29.01.2014. 1.01 YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO HOLD S O NOW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY ID. CIT(A). ITA NO. 1567 / AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 05 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 3 2.00 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT - 2.01 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BARODA ['ID. A.O. IN SHORT] ERRED IN DISALLOWING INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,97,425 / - ON ERRONEOUS PLEA THAT THE SAME IS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS W ITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 36(1) (III) OF THE ACT. 2.02 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. A.O. ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS.2,29,389/ - BEING PROVISION MADE FOR AMC CHARGES ON THE ERRONEOUS PLEA THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED AND WAS NOT PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SAME IS N OT ALLOWABLE. 2.03 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. A.O. ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,14,731 / - ON MOTOR CAR AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.21,254 / - ON LOAN AVAILED FOR PURCHASE OF MOTOR CAR, ON ERRONEOUS PLEA THAT RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REQUIRE MAINTENANCE OF TWO CARS. THE SECOND CAR PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR IS TREATED AS USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES AND THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST ON BORROWED F UNDS FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 2.04 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR APPELLANT CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. A.O. ERRED IN DISALLOWING 10% OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES [RS.74,654 / - ], VEHICLE EXPENSES [RS.1,08,420 / - ], REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE EXP ENSES [RS.94,556] AND INSURANCE EXPENSES [RS.21 , 953 / - ] ON ERRONEOUS PLEA THAT PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. 2.05 YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO HOLD SO NOW AND DIRECT THE ID. AO TO DELETE ADDITIONS MADE. 3. WHEN THIS APPEAL W A S CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX - PARTE SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT AS TO WHETHER APP ELLANT APPEARS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) OR NOT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERITS; IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO SUMMARILY DISMISS THE APPEAL SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM. WHEN THE ABOVE LEGAL POSIT ION WAS PUT TO LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE FAIRLY DID NOT DISP U TE ITA NO. 1567 / AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 05 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 3 IT BUT P R AY E D T HAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTOR E D TO T H E FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. WHILE DOING SO, LEARNED CIT(A) WILL AFFORD YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, WILL DECIDE THE MATTER, BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE DIRECT SO. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF APRIL , 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 21 ST D AY OF APRIL , 201 7 . PBN/* COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD