Maa Santoshi Enterprises, Jharsuguda V. ITO, Jharsuguda

ITA 170/CTK/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7254 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.170/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 2011 MAA SANTOSHI ENTERPRISES, AT - BY PASS ROAD, NEAR RELIANCE PETROL PUMP, BEHERAPAT, PO & DIST: JHARSUGUDA. VS. ITO, WARD - 1, JHARSUGUDA. PAN/GIR NO. AAOFM 4017 D (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02 /01/ 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/01/ 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTACK, DATED 29.12.2014 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO ERRED IN PASSING THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND FIGURES AVAILABLE ON RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE BUSINESS. 2. THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE CASE, IN SPITE OF THE ASSESSEES WRITTEN SU BMISSION FOR RE - CONFIRMATION OF FIGURES FROM THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENT. 2 ITA NO.170/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED AND FILED HIS CORRECT INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO HAS ALTERED THE PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND ENHANCED THE TAX LIABILIT Y, WHICH IS NOT A WILFUL SUPPRESSION OF THE FACTS. THAT THE AO HAS NOT LINKED ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN SEQUENCE AND BEING DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE PRIMA - FACIE. 4. THAT AFTER SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS THE AO HAS TAKEN MONTHS OF TIME TO ISSUE QUESTIONARIES AND AFTER FILING REPLY BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE REPLY AND OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN ITS REPLY WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NEVER DISCUSSED THE MODALITIES OF REPLY WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. THE AO HAS NOT REPLIED UPON THE DATA I.E. RETURNS AND VAT AUDIT REPORT DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SALES TAX) DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT RELIED ON THE ERROR DATA GIVEN BY THE DCIT JHARSUGUDA. INSPITE THE SAME AFTER BEING OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ITO, HAS DENIED FOR RECONFIRMATION OF THE SAME AND ADDED THE SAME. 6. THE AO HAS ADDED 15% DEPRECIATION ON THE SUM PAID TO FINANCE COMPANY TOWARDS LOAN INSTALMENT REPAYMENT. THE AO HAS LINKED THE LOAN REPAYMENT WITH DEPRECIATION. 7. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY WILFUL CONCEALMENT OF FACRS AND FIGURES, AGAINST WHICH PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. 8. THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY SPEED POST ON 6.10.2016 FIXING THE HEARING OF APPEAL ON 19.10.2016 . NONE APPEARED ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND, THEREFORE, ANOTHER NOTICE WAS SENT ON 19.10.2016 THROUGH DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FIXING THE HEA RING OF THE APPEAL ON 22.11.2016, WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 1.11.201 1 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, JHARSUGUDA AS INTIMATED TO THIS OFFICE VIDE LETTER NO.ITO/W - 1/JSG/16017/130 DATED 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2011, PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE SAID 3 ITA NO.170/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 LETTER, HE POINTED OUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN PLACE OF ORIGINAL ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER: MAA SANTOSHI ENTERPRISES, AT - BY PASS ROAD, NEAR RELIANCE PETROL PUMP, BEHERAPAT, PO & DIST: JHAR SUGUDA. 3. ON 22.11.2016, AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHRI PREM KUMAR SURAJGARIA THROUGH POST AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 2.1.2017 FOR WHICH ANOTHER NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE NEW A DDRESS ON 22.11.2016 BUT THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS NOT FOUND. ON 2.1.2017, WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED. KEEPING IN VIE W THE ABOVE FACTS,T HE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 02/01/2017 . SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 02/01 /2017 4 ITA NO.170/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : MAA SANTOSHI ENTERPRISES, AT - BY PASS ROAD, NEAR RELIANCE PETROL PUMP, BEHERAPAT, PO & DIST: JHARSUGUDA. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD - 1 ,JHARSUGUDA 3. THE CIT(A) , C UTTACK 4. CIT , CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//