Ultra Tech Transmission, Baroda V. The Addl. CIT, Range-2, Baroda

ITA 1600/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3775 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1600/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12) ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION GF-1, RADHAKRISHNA APARTMENT 7, SHANTI NIKETAN PARK SOCIETY, NEAR VINS HOSPITAL, PRODUCTIVITY ROAD, BARODA-390020 V/S ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-2, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABFU6678B APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANISH J. SHAH, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L. P. JAIN, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 03-07-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 -07-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, VADODARA DATED 05.02.2015 PERTAINING TO A .Y. 2011-12 AND ASSESSEE TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: ITA NOS. 160 0/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2011- 12 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) - 5, BARODA HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. DISALLOWING FREIGHT EXPENSE OF RS.5,03 ,235/- AS GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HENCE THE FREIGHT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-V BARODA. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT NAMELY ULT RA TECH TRANSMISSIONS, IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INF RASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, TRANSMISSION AND TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS, PIPE LAY ING, ROADS AND SIMILAR TYPE OF WORK, TRADING IN TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS, INVESTME NT AND DERIVATIVE ACTIVITIES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR T HE A.Y.2011-12 VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE AND AN AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS POIN TS AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS TILED WITH THE CI T (APPEALS) 5, BARODA, TO WHOM THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER AND ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES ON THE REMARKS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO JUSTIFY OUR CASE WERE MADE 3. AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED SO ME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND REQUESTED THAT SAME MAY BE ADVERTENT U/S. 46A OF IN COME TAX RULE. BUT LD. CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THE SAME AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. NOW ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED SECOND STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FILED SO ME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT SOME WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN OUR ITA NOS. 160 0/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2011- 12 3 CONSIDERED OPINION, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THOSE EVIDENCES FOR FAIR DISPOSA L OF THE MATTER. 6. THUS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER WILL PASS AN ORDER AS PER P ROVISIONS OF LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 - 07 - 2019 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASA D) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 31/07/2019 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD