M/s Srinidhi Mines , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3084/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8672 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3084 (BANG) 2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 16) M/S. SRINIDHI MINES, APPELLANT #207, II FLOOR, ELEGANCE ROYALE, 2 ND A CROSS, SINDHI COLONY, J. C. ROAD, BENGALURU 560011 PAN: ACEFS0481P VS THE ITO, WARD 5 (2) (2), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 03-12-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-12-2018 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 5 BENGALURU DATED 08.08.2018 FOR A. Y. 20 15 16. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEING BAD IN LAW AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (TAX EFFECT OF ABOVE GROUND: 9,66,577/-) 2.1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE WITHOUT FOLLOWIN G THE DUE PROCESS IN LAW FOR CONVERTING APPELLANT'S LIMITED SCRUTINY INTO COMPLETE SCRUTINY. 2.2 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER'S FAILURE TO SEEK PRIOR APPROVALS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WHI CH IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY, MAKES THE ENTIRE ASSESSM ENT PROCESS BAD IN LAW AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS THEREFORE LIABLE TO B E QUASHED. 2.3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME FAX (APPEAL S) INSTEAD OF QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE SAME. THE ORDERS AS PASSED BEING BAD IN LAW AND ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (TAX EFFECT OF ABOVE GROUND: 9,66,577/-) ITA NO. 3084(BANG)2018 2 3.1 WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS BY THE APPELLAN T DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS OF HIRING OR LEASING OF VEH ICLES. 3.2. ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS OF THE CASE, T HE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE OF RS. 1.79 CRORES FRO M TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND IS VERY MUCH ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATIO N BUSINESS OF HIRING OR LEASING OF VEHICLES. 3.3. THE CONCLUSION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES BEING ERRO NEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS TO BE IGNORED. (TAX EFFECT OF ABOVE GROUND: 9,66,577/-) 4.1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN RES TRICTING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE ONLY T O 15% OF THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF VEHICLES BLOCK. THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.2. ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS OF THE CASE AN D APPLICABLE LAW THE APPELLANT HAVING USED THE VEHICLES IN THE BUSIN ESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE THE CORRECT RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON SUCH VE HICLES IS 30%. 4.3. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BEING ERRONEO US UNDER LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF APPELLANT'S CASE HAS TO BE DELETED. (TAX EFFECT OF ABOVE GROUND: 9,66,577/-) 5. IN LIEU OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER S BE QUASHED OR AT LEAST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BE DELETED. (CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT OF ALL THE GROUNDS ABOVE: 9, 66,577/-) 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 03.12.2018 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 16.11.2 018. THE NOTICE HAS NOT COME BACK AS UNSERVED AND THEREFORE, SERVICE O F NOTICE IS PRESUMED BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS SENT ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. HENCE IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE O F MULTIPLAN, 38 ITD 320, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE D A T E D : 21.12.2018 /MS/ ITA NO. 3084(BANG)2018 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.