Thiruvensun Bio Botanica Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2325/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8845 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K SANTHANARAMAN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2325/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S.THIRUVENSUN BIO BOTANICA PVT.LTD., 15, 4 TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, CHENNAI-20. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(2), CHENNAI. PAN: BRXPM2104E ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. M.K.SANTHANARAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 10 TH AUGUST,2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 11, CHENNAI DATED 23.10.2015 IN ITA NO.72/2014-15/ CIT(A)- 11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250(6) O F THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS F OLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING 2 ITA NO.2325/MDS/2015 OF ASSESSMENT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS VALID. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.28,88,185/- UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT DEPRECIATION OF RS.20,03,090/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACT URING PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS LIKE AYURVEDIC SKIN CARE PR ODUCTS, HAIR CARE PRODUCTS, HOME CARE PRODUCTS ETC., FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 30.09.200 8 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 26,74,950/-. INITIALLY ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30.12.2010 WHEREIN LOSS WAS DECLARED A T RS.15,33,100/-. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT WAS REOPEN ED AND COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT ON 12.03.2014 WHEREIN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE ADDITION OF RS.28,18,185/- UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAIN BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS DELETED CERTAIN DEPR ECIABLE FIXED ASSETS FROM THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND SH OWN THE SAME AS ADDITION IN THE SAME SCHEDULE. 3 ITA NO.2325/MDS/2015 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD AR RIVED AT SUCH DECISION EVEN AFTER EXPLAINING THE FACTS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS INVOICE DATED 6.3.2014 TO SHOW THAT SOME OF THE EQUIPMENTS WERE DISMANTLED AN D RE- ERECTED ON RELOCATION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE FURTHER EXPLAINED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD D ELETED THESE ASSETS FROM ITS DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND IN THE SAME YEAR SHOWED IT AS ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MISTOOK THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AN D MADE ADDITION OF RS.28,18,185/-. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRANSACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DIRE CTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT DEPRECIATION FOR RS. 20,03,090/-. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED BY THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS FURTHER CONFIRME D BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE 4 ITA NO.2325/MDS/2015 EITHER DELETED OR THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THOUGH ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS O F THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HA VE MISTAKEN THE TRANSACTION WHICH RESULTED IN ERRONEOUS ORDERS. FROM THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DELETED CERTAIN ASSETS FROM THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND SIMULTANEOUSLY S HOWN IT AS ADDITIONS SINCE HE HAD RELOCATED THE ASSET IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. THIS KIND OF UNNECESSARY CONTRA ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS HAS LEAD TO THE CONFUSION IN THE MINDS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED 5 ITA NO.2325/MDS/2015 VIEW THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRES TO REVISIT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE O N MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY REMIT BACK THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSID ERATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 17 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 17 TH AUGUST, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .