M/s. Tejaswini Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1982/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59337 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TH LUCAS PETER
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1982/HYD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S. TEJASWINI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN: AABCT6421A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO RESPONDENT BY: SHRI TH. LUCAS PETER DATE OF HEARING: 15 . 03 .201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.03.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 29.9.2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE HONBLE CIT, APPEALS-III, HYDERABAD HAS DISALLO WED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 32 TOWARDS DE PRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,98,982/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT CORRECT, NOT JUSTIFIED AN D BAD IN LAW. 2. THE HONBLE CIT, APPEALS-III, HYDERABAD HAS ERRED W HILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHEREIN THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TO WARDS DEPRECIATION AND PURCHASES FOR RS. 1,32,96,485/- WH ICH IS NOT CORRECT AND NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 HAS ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TOTA L INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,96,949/- WAS SUBMITTED WHEREAS A S PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A SUM OF RS. 1,32,96,485/- HAS BEE N ADDED TO THE RETURN AND THE TOTAL INCOME CALCULATED TO RS. 1 ,36,93,434/- WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AND NOT JUSTIFIED AND BAD IN L AW. I.T.A. NO. 1982/HYD/2011 M/S. TEJASWINI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. =========================== 2 3. THE FIRST GROUND WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEP RECIATION AT RS. 12,98,982 IS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US. ACCORDI NGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHAS ES AT RS. 1,19,97,503. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: AMOUNT (RS.) --------------- JAYA DURGA ENTERPRISES 28,26,915 NAGA DURGA TRADERS 37,69,220 TIRUMALA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES 2,08,000 NAVA JYOTHI STEELS 51,96,367 -------------- TOTAL 1,19,97,503 ========== 5. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED CONFIRMATIONS FOR THE ABOVE PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES AND THE SAME AMOUNT OF R S. 1,19,97,503 WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE THE CIT (A) UNDER RULE 46A(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULE, 1962 AND PRAYED T O CONSIDER THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) D ID NOT ADMIT THE SAME ON THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PRODUCING THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAY ED FOR PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND FOR A DIRECTION FROM THIS TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PL AY, IT IS FAIR TO I.T.A. NO. 1982/HYD/2011 M/S. TEJASWINI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. =========================== 3 CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER R ULE 46A(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVE NTED IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON THE LAST DAY PRESCRIBED FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT I.E., 31.12.2009. BEI NG SO, IT IS JUST AND PROPER TO CONSIDER THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY WE RE MIT THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MARCH, 2012. SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 22 ND MARCH, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. TEJASWINI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., C/O. M/S. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-82. 2. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - III, HYDERABAD 4 . THE CIT - II, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO