Indo Colchem Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2310/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9990 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V.K. SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Indo Colchem Pvt. Ltd. 36/2, GIDC, Phase-II, Vatva, Ahmedabad-382445 PAN No: AAACI4393K (Appellant) Vs The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 02-08-2022 Date of pronouncement : 21-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an filed by the Assessee against order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad, as against ex-parte assessment order passed u/s. 143(3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. ITA No. 2310/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2010-11 I.T.A No. 2310/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Indo Colchem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing of Dyes and Dye intermediates. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 2,36,69,459/-. Regular assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed assessing the total income as Rs. 2,39,71,533/-. Thereafter the case was reopened u/s. 148 on account of excess claim of additional depreciation for Fluidized Bed Furnace which was utilized to generate hot air by heat treatment and not for manufacture of article or things, thus not eligible for additional depreciation. 2.1. During the re-assessment proceedings, the assessee asked to furnish of user manual of the machine to substantiate its claim of additional depreciation and technical details of the machinery. However the assessee sought time to produce the User Manual, however failed to produce the same. Therefore the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order disallowing the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 20,78,780/-. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2. During the appellate proceedings, the Authorized Representative field a written submission. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that the generation of hot air has resulted into production for manufacture of article or things. The assessee neither before the A.O. nor before the I.T.A No. 2310/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Indo Colchem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3 appellate proceedings submitted the relevant documents as required by second and third proviso of section 32(iia) in the form of Form No. 3AA showing the details of machinery for plant and increase in installed capacity of production. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal field by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing in para 3.3 of the order that neither before Assessing Officer nor during the appellate proceedings, appellate has submitted the relevant documents as required by IInd & IIIrd proviso of section 32(iia) in form No. 3AA as the requirement of form 3AA, has been omitted in IT Act w.e.f 01-04-2006 and that all details of plant and machinery is submitted before CIT(A) as well as assessing officer in the reassessment proceedings and which were even already available with the assessing officer in the original proceedings assessment and hence the sustaining of disallowance of deprecation is bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer has merely made the disallowance of depreciation on the basis that assessee could not submit of user manual of machine but the same had been submitted before the order of reassessment and hence the disallowance is without out any basis. 3. That there is no material or evidence that the depreciation claimed and allowed in original assessment is not allowable expenditure and that all the material and documents are already before the assessing officer in original assessment proceedings duly considered and therefore the CIT(A) has erred in holding in para 2.3 of the order that because of failure on the part of appellant, the assessing officer was justified in reopening the assessment passed u/s 143(3) beyond four years of the assessment. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance as the order of the assessing officer is without jurisdiction, bad in law on facts and in law. 4.1. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Today is the 19 th hearing of the cases, none appeared on behalf of the assessee even in the previous hearings also. However a Paper Book is being filed by the assessee. The Paper Book which contains copy of the letter submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before the Assessing I.T.A No. 2310/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Indo Colchem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 4 Officer, Copy of Fluidized Bed Furnace Machine, Audited Financial Statement, and Regular Assessment order. On perusal of the details Fluidized Bed Furnace machine at page no. 33 to 35 which are seen to be explanation of the plant and machinery with each parts. There is no technical details on the above Fluidized Bed Combustion Furnace System and also generation of hot air by this plant and machinery. The assessee also has not furnished before us Form No. 3AA as required u/s. 32(iia) and second and third proviso of the Act and Rule 5A of the I.T. Rules. 4.2. In the absence of the same, we have no hesitation in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). In the result, the grounds raised by the Assessee are devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-10-2022 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 21/10/2022 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद