M/s. Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata V. CIT, Kol-IV, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1713/KOL/1993

• Counselvise Citation: 171323514 RSA 1993
• Duration Of Justice: 18 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1990-1991
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-1993
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH A, KOLKATA () BEFORE , ,, , , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , '# SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO . 1713/CAL/1993 %& '(/ ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 (*+ / APPELLANT ) M/S.INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA (PAN :FX-8357) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, KOLKATA *+ . / '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.M.SURANA ,-*+ . / '/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S.K.ROY 0%1 . !# /DATE OF HEARING : 25.01.2012. 2' . !# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.02.2012. '3 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) )) ), , , , '# PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 04.03.1993 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR. 1990-91. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO JU STIFICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.11,26,487/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE SERVICES CHARGES A ND IN THAT VIEW ERRED IN DELETING THE SAME AMOUNT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES TO RS.88,731/-. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES TO 1/10 TH OF THE TOTAL TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 2 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BRANCH OFFICE EXPENSES TO RS.9,000/-. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2000 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO. AS REGARDING GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 RAISED BY ASSESSEE THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REJECTED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS NOW, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PLICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT U/S 260A OF THE IT ACT IN RESP ECT OF GROUND NO.1 ONLY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECONSIDERATION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS AS AFORESAID PRODUCED BEFORE US, WE FEEL THAT THE SAME MUST HAVE A DIRECT BEARING IN THE DECISION OF THE JUDGEM ENT AND/OR ORDER OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ASSAILED BEFORE US. THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AND COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND/OR ORDER WAS PASSED. AC CORDINGLY, WE FEEL THAT THIS MATTER NEEDS RELOOK. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE J UDGEMENT AND/OR ORDER OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH HE ARING TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES IN THE CASE OF INDIAN CHEMICALS AND MINERALS AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF INDIAN SALES AND A GENCIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL WILL ALSO EXAMINE THE IMPACT OF THOSE ORDERS AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF IN DIAN CHEMICALS AND MINERALS AND IN THE CASE OF INDIAN SALES AND AGENCIES FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1990-91 WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGES 9 TO 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE FIRM TO A SSESSEE AND FURTHER HELD THAT BECAUSE THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE FIRM THE APPLICANTS T URN OVER HAD NEARLY DOUBLED. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO A PPLY SECTION 40A(2)B OF THE IT ACT BY ITSELF SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE FIRM IN QUESTION HAD RENDERED THE SERVICES TO ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO DISALLO W THE SERVICE CHARGES OF RS.11,26,487/-. THEREFORE WE ALLOW GROUND NO.1 RAIS ED BY ASSESSEE. 3 6. AS REGARDING THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WILL HOL D GOOD. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29.02.2012. SD/- SD/- , ,, , MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# '# '# '# , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 29/02/2012. R.G.(P.S.) '3 . ,4 5'4'6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.INDIAN COAL AGENCY, 14, BENTICK DTREET, KOLKATA -700001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, KOLKATA 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT(A)-IV, KOLKATA 5. THE CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA -4 ,/ TRUE COPY, '3%0/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES