Injectcare Parenterals Pvt.Ltd., Vapi V. The DY.CIT.,Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 2158/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6117 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2158/AHD/2015 INJECTCARE PARENTERALS PVT LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] I.T.A. NO.2158/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 INJECTCARE PARENTERALS PVT LTD .....APPELLANT PLOT NO. 130, GIDC, VAPI-396 195 [PAN : AABCI 0232 J] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .RESPONDENT CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY: MANISH SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT MUDIT NAGPAL FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 12.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 12.02.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CI T(A)S ORDER DATED 26 TH MAY 2015, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE:- THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.4,33,422/- ON THE PRETEXT THAT IT IS INTEREST IN THE NATURE OF PENALT Y FOR NOT PAYING DUE TAXES LEVIED BY THE ACT OF THE STATE. 3. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE AB OVE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DE CISION DATED 15.09.2017 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 . WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AND, ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,33,422/-. THE ASSESS EE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 5. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GRIEVANCE:- ITA NO. 2158/AHD/2015 INJECTCARE PARENTERALS PVT LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN DISALLOWING AN A MOUNT OF RS.2,14,641/- ON THE BASIS OF IT BEING LIABILITY PERTAINING TO EARLIER Y EARS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO DEMONSTRATE WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE LIABILITY HAD CRYSTALLIZED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6. BRIEFLY, THE RELATED FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS.2,14,641/- OF CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION CHA RGES PAID TO CLEAN FOOT CORPORATION BUT THAT AMOUNT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE RELEVANT PR EVIOUS YEAR. IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSING OFFICERS REQUISITION FOR CLARIFICATIONS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BILL WAS SETTLED IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, AS THE BILL WAS DISPUTED, AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN T HIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING T HAT .... THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF EARLIER YEARS OBLIGATIONS, AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DIS ALLOWED CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION CHARGES PAID TO ONE OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANT, AS IF WAS HELD BY HIM THAT THE PAYMENT MADE PERTAIN TO EARLIER YEA RS. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE WITH THE CUSTOMER WHICH WA S SETTLED BY WAY OF COURT ACTION AND THE PAYMENT AND LIABILITY WAS SETTLED DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE , IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GIVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LIABIL ITY CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS A JUDICIA L DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND CLEAN FOOT CORPORATION BUT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LIABILITY HAS CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR . THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPY OF NOTICE GIVEN BY THE CLEAN FOOT CORPORATION, BUT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO SHOW THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE WAY OF THE COURT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT , I'M OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO THAT THE EXPEN SES PERTAIN TO EARLIER YEAR IS JUSTIFIED. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM IS THEREFOR E UPHELD. 7. NOT SATISFIED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT WAS ONLY ON 24.09.2010 THAT THE BIL L RAISED BY CLEAN FOOT VALIDATION COMPANY WAS SETTLED. A COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT NOTE , WHICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE CIT(A), WAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US. WHEN IT WAS POI NTED OUT TO THE LEARNED DR, HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE AS WELL. 9. GROUND NO.2 IS THUS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2158/AHD/2015 INJECTCARE PARENTERALS PVT LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 3 10. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO.3, AS IT IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, [ 366 ITR 170 (GUJ.)]. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE.. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 **BT* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ... 12.02.2018... ORDER PREP ARED AS PER 4 PAGES MANUSCRIPT OF HONBLE AM, WHICH ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH..... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 12.02.2018..... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: . 12.02.2018............ 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: ... 12.02.2018...... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : .... 12.02.2018.................... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......