Shri Ranjitkhan I. Rana, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Baroda

ITA 2092/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8719 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 32

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2092 /AHD/ 201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR , AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD , JM] ITA NO. 2092 / AHD / 2 0 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 RA NJITKHAN I. RANA, ....... ...........APPELLANT PROP. O F R.R. CONSTRUCTIONS , 43, AMIN NAGAR SOCIETY, CHHANI, BOARODA 394 220. [P AN : A BKPR 5701 Q ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BARODA. ............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT PRASOON KABRA FOR THE RESP ONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 2 4.07. 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 17 .08.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 3 RD MAR CH 2014 , PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) - I I , BARODA , IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 0 10 - 11 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : - 1. T HE L D. CIT(A) - I V , BARODA , ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION U/S 32 ON ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY OF RS.67318/ - . ITA NO. 2092 /AHD/ 201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. THE L D. CIT(A) - IV, BARODA, ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.859581/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S 41(1) OF THE IT ACT, THOUGH NOT U/S.41(1) BUT TREATING THE SAID CREDITORS AS NON GENUINE. 3. THE L D. CIT(A) - IV, BARODA, ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO HIS NOTI CE THAT THE CREDITORS WERE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT PAYMENTS DULY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY INFERENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 4. THE L D. CIT(A) - IV, BARODA, ERRED IN LAW AND/OR ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON CAR AT 10% OUT OF 20% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MORE SO WHEN OTHER EXPENSE RELATING TO CAR HAVE NOT BEEN DISALLOWED ON AFORESAID GROUND. 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING, NONE APPE ARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT DESPITE NOTICE HAVING BEEN SE NT BY REGISTERED POST. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS CASE. HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGE E AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HON BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. WE , THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 17 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 17 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 PBN/ * ITA NO. 2092 /AHD/ 201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FI LE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD