Sh. Maharaj Krishan Bhan Prop., Kashmir V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kashmir

ITA 278/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4411 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K KAUL
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 278(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: ABXPB6651N SH. MAHARAJ KRISHEN BHAN VS. THE DY. COMMIS SIONER OF PROP: M/S USHA ELECTRICALS, INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR REGAL CHOWK, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. S.K. KAUL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 04.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.09.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JA MMU, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY BELOW IS BAS ED ON MERE SURMISES AND WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE BASIC RECORDS OF THE APPELLANTS ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THE CIT(A)/A.O. HAS FAILED GROSSLY IN IMPARTING JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT AND T HE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE 1 ST APPEAL. THAT THE DISALLOWANCES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS VIZ. RS. 150,000/-; 14160/-; 431,227/-; 14,47 0/-; & 326,600/- 2 I.T.A. NO. 278(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 IS BASED ON WRONG APPLICATION OF LAW. THE CONTRADIC TORY ORDER ITSELF SPEAKS ABOUT THE PREDETERMINED SET OF MIND. THE DISALLOWANCES ARE UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED NORMS OF LAW. II. THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C IS ERRONEOUS AS THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF TDS BY THE APPELLANT APART FROM CLAIM U/S 80. THE APPELLANTS CLAIM UNDER THE HEAD TDS ON THE BASIS O F THE CERTIFICATES OF TDS ENCLOSED/FILED HAS BEEN DELIBER ATELY IGNORED AND NO CREDIT ALLOWED AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED WHI CH HAS EFFECTED IN THE CHARGING OF TAX APART AND INTEREST UNDER THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTIONS WHICH IS UNJUST AND ARBITRARY. III. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SELF-EXPLANATORY AND T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION FIL ED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAS RESUOTED IN WRONG ADDITIONS. IV. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GR OUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2) THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3) AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. S.K. KAUL, ADVOCATE, STATED THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT AFFORD ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE HAS A GOOD CASE AND THE ASSESSEE CAN ESTAB LISH ITS CLAIM IF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO IT. AT LAST, HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ASSESSEE MA Y BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 3 I.T.A. NO. 278(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4) ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEAR NED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS. WE ARE NOT COMMENTING UPON THE MERIT OF THE CASE AS IT WILL PR EJUDICE THE MIND OF AUTHORITY CONCERNED. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A), JAM MU, TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER AFFORDING FULL OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY CO-OPERATE IN TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, AND DO NOT SEEK A NY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 6) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 4 I.T.A. NO. 278(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. MAHARAJ KRISHEN BHAN, PROP: M/S U SHA ELECTRICALS, REGAL CHOWK, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR, KASHM IR 3. THE CIT(A),JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.