DCIT, Panchkula V. M/s Haryana Land Reclamation & Development Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 262/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5467 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH NAYYAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.262 /CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) THE D.C.I.T. PANCHKULA, VS. M/S HARYANA LAND REC LAMATION & CIRCLE, PANCHKULA. DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD., SCO 32-34, SECTOR 17 C, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACH4684A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.SARITA KUMARI, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARISH NAYYAR O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A), DATED 05.01.2011 RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/ S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROPER PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT IN THE CASE WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND AS AGAINST THE 2 RETURNED LOSS OF RS.56,82,847/-, THE INCOME WAS ASS ESSED AT RS.16,55,795/-. THE ASSESSEE APPEALED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 883/CHANDI/2007 VIDE ORDE R DATED 31.10.2008 DELETED/CONFIRMED SOME ADDITIONS AND RESTORED THE A DDITION OF RS.41,03,033/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICU LTURAL EXPENSES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDING S NOTED THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE AD DITION OF RS.41,03,033/- WAS A DOUBLE ADDITION AS THE ASSESSE E ITSELF HAD ADDED THE EXPENSES IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THAT IN CASE THE SAME WAS A DOUBLE ADDITION, THEN RELIEF MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH NECESSARY DETAILS AND EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND THEREAF TER COMPUTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,70,316/- IS WARRANTED IN THE CASE. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COMMERCI AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT FROM THE PER USAL OF THE DETAILS THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS DIRECTLY R ELATABLE TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS THE SAID BILLS WERE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECT ED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID D IRECTION OF THE CIT(A). 3 6. SMT.SARITA KUMARI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE AND SHRI HARISH NAYYAR APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PUT FOR WARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.10.2008 HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,03,033/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITY WAS A DOUBLE ADDITION, AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD ADDED THE EXPE NSES IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 4 OF ITS ORDER DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER : ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS REALLY DOUBLE ADDITION THEN RELI EF MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION HE RE THAT DUE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, CONSEQUENTLY THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 8. THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO EX AMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO VERIFY WHETHER THE SAID ADDITIO N OF RS.41,03,033/- WAS A DOUBLE ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS T O VERIFY WHETHER A DOUBLE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE CASE, IN VIEW OF TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD ADDED THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABL E TO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HA S TRAVELED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ISSUE REMITTED BACK TO HIM. THE CIT(A ) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE QUANTIFICATION OF DISALLOWANCE IN T HE CASE WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE MATTER 4 NEEDS TO BE RE-LOOKED BY THE CIT(A) IN LINE WITH TH E DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH APRIL , 2011 RATI COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH