The ITO, Ward-4(1), Ahmedabad V. Gayatri Pestichem Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2385/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89388 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD 00 , ! ' #$, % & BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO. 2385/AHD/2007 % ) *)/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ITO, WARD - 4(1) AHMEDABAD. VS GAYATRI PESTICHEM MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD. C/O. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ASARWA, AHMEDABAD -16. +, / (APPELLANT) -. +, / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI ROOPCHAND ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 29/04/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: /04/2015 // O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (A) VIII, AHMEDABAD DATED 7.3.2007. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.4.2009 IN ITA NO.2385/AHD/2007 FOR THE ASSTT.YEA R 2003-04 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE ON THE GROUND OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 3. THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AND THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.9.2013 PASSED IN TAX APPEAL NO.1271 OF 201 0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIBUN AL HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPROPRIATE COMPUTATI ON OF LAW SHOULD BE ITA NO.2385/AHD/2007 2 NECESSARY AND MAY HAVE RELEVANCE, IF ANY, IN SUBSEQ UENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE DECLARES PROFITS, AND IF THE SAME WOULD HA VE BEEN CONSIDERED, THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN EACH OF THE APPEALS WILL BE IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE CIRCULAR PREVAILING AT THE RELEVAN T TIME. THEREAFTER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERIT, HENCE, THIS APPEAL BE FORE US. 4. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RE ADS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 7,68,313/- MADE U/S.137(1) OF THE ACT BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT EXPENSES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.37,68,313/- OUT OF DIFFERENT E XPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS IN EXC ESS THAN THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES TO SALE RELATING TO LAST YEA R. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ALL THE EXP ENSES INCURRED WERE SUPPORTED BY THE VOUCHERS AND GENUINENESS OF T HE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT IN DOUBT , AND THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDIT ION. 7. BEFORE US, THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO 8. WE FIND THAT NO ERROR COULD BE POINTED OUT BY TH E DR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT NO DEFECT COU LD BE POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN RESPECT OF THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENC E OF THE SAME, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO O NLY ALLOW THE EXPENSES IN THE SAME PROPORTION, AS WAS INCURRED IN THE LAST YEAR, AND BRUSH ASIDE THE DULY MAINTAINED BOOK RESULTS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS ITA NO.2385/AHD/2007 3 HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2.THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE C ASE IN DIRECTING THE AO TO QUANTITY AND SPECIFY THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF BUSINESS LOSS/UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AFTER GIVING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY HIM IN THIS CASE. 10. BEFORE US, THE DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY PREJU DICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE STATED GROUNDS BY T HE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN TH E GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED . 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY THE 30 TH APRIL, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/04/2015