Smt. Beena Tandon, Kanpur V. DY. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 250/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4362 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.250/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THE DCIT-1, KANPUR VS SMT. BEENA TANDON, L/H OF LATE ASHOK TANDON (DECEASED) PROP. M/S STAR AUTOMOBILES 16/109, THE MALL, KANPUR PAN AAHPT 0401 H (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 15/07/2016 DATE OF HEARING 20/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A), KANPUR, INTER ALIA ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- '1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A)-I, KANPUR HAS BEEN WRONG IN LAW ON FACTS AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISAL LOWANCES BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961: - RS. 925S94/- BEING BAD DEBTS CLAIMED DUING THE YEAR . RS.658082/- BEING INTEREST PAID ON LOAN. RS.82252/- BEING MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE (I.E. GE NERATOR RUNNING EXPENSES AND REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES) RS.34255/- BEING SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. 2 RS.16483/- BEING CAR RUNNING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION THEREON. RS.300000/- BEING UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 A S THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT ISSUING STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET-ASIDE AND ANNULLED. 3. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.925594/- MADE BY THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEING BAD DEBTS CLAIMED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (A)-I, KANPUR IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY. 4. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.658082/- MADE BY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEING INTEREST PAID ON LOAN AND CONFIRMED B Y THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I, KANPUR IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITR ARY. 5. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.82252/- MADE BY THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER BEING MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (I.E. GENERATO R RUNNING EXPENSES AND REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS.9 3219/- AND RS.39033/- AGGREGATING RS.132252/-) AND CONFIRM ED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I, KANPUR IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS UNJUSTIFIE D AND ARBITRARY. 6. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.34255/- MADE BY THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER BEING SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES AND CONFIRME D BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-IF KANPUR IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS UNJUSTIFIE D AND ARBITRARY. 7. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 16483/- MADE BY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEING CAR RUNNING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION THEREON AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)- I, KANPUR IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY. 8. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.300000/- MADE BY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEING UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 3 1961 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (A)-I, KANPUR IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AND IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY. 9. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (A)-I, KANPUR IS BAD IN LAW, ON FACTS AND AGAIN ST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT BUT DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE, WHEREAS THE CIT(A) WAS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AP PEAR. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), I FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE AND HAS RECORDED THAT ON VARIOUS DATES ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOU RNMENT. THOUGH CIT(A) HAS WRITTEN FEW LINES WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE ON MERIT BUT ON ITS PERUSAL IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME THAT HE APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FA CTS ON MERIT. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- (S.K. YAD AV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/07/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR