Shri Santnath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Solapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax,

ITA 2990/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4636 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH GAWLI
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 2 990 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 SHRI SANTNATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., A/P. TULSHIDASNAGAR, TAL. - BARSHI, DISTT. - SOLAPUR - 413402 PAN : AAAAB0873D ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SOLAPUR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWLI / DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 - 0 8 - 201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 10 - 201 8 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7, PUNE DATED 16 - 09 - 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10. 2. THE FIRST NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 24 - 02 - 2018 FOR 22 - 03 - 2018. ON THE SAID DATE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF 2 ITA NO . 2990/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR 16 - 05 - 2018. ON 16 - 05 - 2018 A WRITTEN REQUEST WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE F OR ADJOURNING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 17 - 05 - 2018. ON 17 - 05 - 2018 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED TO 21 - 08 - 2018. A FRESH NOTICE INTIMATING HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS ISSUED ON 1 8 - 05 - 2018 THROUGH RPAD . AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD , THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND REPEATED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21 - 08 - 2018. IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT KEEN TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL HENCE, THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION ON THE BASIS OF DOCUME NTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF WHITE SUGAR. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 29 - 09 - 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AS NIL. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE ADDITION OF RS.84,413/ - BY DISALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 35(1) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION MADE TO RESEARCH INSTITUTE - VSI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 35(1) IS ADMISSIBLE ON ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED THE AMOUNT RS.84,413/ - BUT HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED THE AMOUNT TO VSI. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27 - 12 - 2011, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE DECISION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO . 2990/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 4. SHRI RAJESH GAWLI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.84,413/ - ON WHICH DEDUCTIO N U/S. 35(1) IS CLAIMED IS UNPAID TO THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE VSI. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 35(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED SIMILAR DEDUCTI ON , HOWEVER , THE SAME WAS REJECTED FOR THE SIMILAR REASON S . 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION RS.8 4,413/ - U/S. 35(1) ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO VSI . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT AS THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ACTUALLY PAID TO THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE VSI. THE DEDUCTION U/S. 35(1)(II) IS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE IF AN AMOUNT IS ACTUALLY PAID TO A RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. IN THE INSTANT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AMOUNT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID TO THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY DENIED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 35(1)(II) TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 18 TH OCTOBER, 2018 RK 4 ITA NO . 2990/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 7, PUNE 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PUNE 5. , , - , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE