The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Agencies & Cargo Care Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 168/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0744 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K C THAKER HEARING CO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 168 /AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] I.T.A. NO. : 168 /AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR S: 20 10 - 11 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 , AHMEDABAD. ..... ............APPELLANT V S AGENCIES & CARGO CARE PVT. LTD., .. ...........RESPONDENT 9 - B, SUMATINAGAR SOCIETY, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD. [A A E C A 7686 B ] APPEARANCES BY PRASOON KABRA, FOR THE APPELLANT K.C. THAKER F OR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 30 /0 8 / 20 16 ORDER PRONOUNCE D ON : 30 /08/ 20 16 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2 013, PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) - II I, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : - (1) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7.53 LACS BEING EXCESS INTEREST PAYMENT U/S 40A(2)(B) DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST @ 15% AGAINST THE MARKET RATE OF 15 % P.A. (2) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST ON SECURED LOANS CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THAT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE FACT THAT BOTH THE SOURCES OF LOANS WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OVER LOOKED BY THE CIT(A). (3) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON CAR WHICH WAS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF I.T.A. NO.: 168 /AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 2 OF 2 ITS EXCLUSIVE USAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1) FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION WERE NOT FUL FILLED. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME/BOOK PROFIT. THE APPELLANT PRA YS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, TO LEAVE, TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . IN VIEW OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS WI THDRAWN FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST ,2016 . 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 TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD