Prime Ceramics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(3), Baroda

ITA 2066/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 206620514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD . , !' # $ $ $ $ % &', # BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.2066/AHD/2010 AY 1999-2000 2. ./ I.T.A.NO.2067/AHD/2010 AY 2000-2001 PRIME CERAMICS PVT.LTD. AT & POST : GAVASAD PADRA JAMBUSAR ROAD PADRA, BAORADA / VS. THE ITO WARD-4(3) BARODA #) !' ./*+ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCP 3755 D ( ), / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.), / RESPONDENT ) ), / ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIN SHAH, A.R. -.), 0 / ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. %$1 0 '' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 01/10/2013 23 0 '' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/10/2013 !4 / O R D E R PER BENCH : BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III, BARODA (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 25/01/2010 & 19/01/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 199 9-2000 & 2000-01 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEALS (EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.2067/AHD/2010 AY 2000-01). 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE AO, IGNORING THE FACT THAT ADDITIONS ARE MADE O N ISSUES UNCONNECTED WITH THE ISSUE MENTIONED IN THE REASON RECORDED FOR REOPENING. ITA NOS.2066 & 2067 /AHD/2010 PRIME CERAMICS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-01 - 2 - 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,32,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDI TION OF RS.2,98,020/- MADE BY AO IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LO AN U/S.68 OF THE ACT. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APP RECIATE THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,44,827/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEF ERRED REVENUE EXPENSES, RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF A.Y. 2 002-03. APPELLANT BOOKED DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF RS .7,24,135/- AND CLAIMED 1/5 TH OF IT BEING RS.1,44,827/- AS DEDUCTIBLE U/S.35D. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE THE AO. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.74,458/- MADE ON AD HOC BASI S, BEING 10% OF CARRIAGE INWARD EXPENSES, MERELY BECAUSE THE PAYMEN TS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAIL ED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT. LD.CIT(A) OU GHT TO HAVE DELETED DISALLOWANCE. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,472/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN INTEREST RECEIVABLE AND ADDED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED T O APPRECIATE THAT APPELLANT HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF RS.48,663/- ON A/C OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT, WHICH INCLUDES THE ABOVE DIFFEREN CE OF RS.13,472/-. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,320/- MADE BY THE AO IN R ESPECT OF INTEREST ON TERM LOAN FROM BANK. 7. INITIATION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8. INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING BEFORE US, AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAS BEEN FILED . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES WERE NO T AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELL ANT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF ITA NOS.2066 & 2067 /AHD/2010 PRIME CERAMICS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-01 - 3 - THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCES FILED IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE FORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED A ND BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECID E IT AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITS APPEALS. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A) IN BOTH THE APPEAL S ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE FOR FRESH DECISION. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS A S INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE SD/- SD/- (. ) (% &') !' # # ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/ 10/2013 7.., $.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !4 0 -'8 9!83' !4 0 -'8 9!83' !4 0 -'8 9!83' !4 0 -'8 9!83'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ), / THE APPELLANT 2. -.), / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' %: / CONCERNED CIT 4. %:() / THE CIT(A)-III, BARODA 5. 8$&; -' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;< =1 / GUARD FILE. !4% !4% !4% !4% / BY ORDER, .8' -' //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / * * * * ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD