Shri Vinodkumar Jagdamba Parsad Pandey, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 3102/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89221 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 3102/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) PANDEY VINODKUMAR JAGDAMBA PRASAD A-004, SUNVIEW TOWER, B/H. AGRAWAL TOWER, SOLA ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380063 APPELL ANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (2), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AHJPP4134C /BY APPELLANT : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT :SHRI ROOPCHAND, SR. D.R. !' /DATE OF HEARING :13.04.2015 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.04.2015 ITA NO. 3102/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 [PANDEY VINODKUMAR JAGDAMBA PRASAD VS. ITO] PAGE 2 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 10.10.2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: (1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING YOUR APPELLANT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. (3) THE LEARNED CTT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,500/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT YOUR APPELLANT HAS HOT PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. (4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS MADE BY THE AO OF RS.5,07,850/- STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FI LED PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE DEBTS ARE REALLY BECOME BAD. (5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.31,714/- MADE BY THE AO IN RESPE CT OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES TREATING THE SAME AS NON-BUSINESS USE OF TELEPHONE. (6) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS.35,661/- ON DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLES AND MOTOR CAR STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY COGENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE VEHICLES WERE USED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ITA NO. 3102/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 [PANDEY VINODKUMAR JAGDAMBA PRASAD VS. ITO] PAGE 3 (7) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,31-462/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN INTRODUCTION OF NEW CAPITAL ON THE GROUND THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDIT ORS. (8) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF L/4TH OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AMOUNTI NG TO RS.18,782/- MADE BY THE AO STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. (9) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF L/4TH OF TRAVELING EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE FINDING OF THE AO. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT PR OVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING EX PAR TE ORDER. ON THIS POINT, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE WAS SERVED NOT ICE FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING OF THE CASE. ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON FIRST TWO OCCASIONS, HOWEVER, ON THI RD DATE, CASE WAS FIXED ON 12.08.2011 WHICH COULD NOT BE COM PLIED. THIS MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TILL 05.10.2011 AND ASSES SEE COULD NOT ATTEND ON SAME DATE AS WELL. WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT APATHY TOWARDS THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LOWER AUTHORI TIES CANNOT BE ENCOURAGED. AT THE SAME TIME, OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING IS THE ESSENCE OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, SO, TAKING OVER ALL VIEW OF SITUATION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIM SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.10,0 00/- TO BE ITA NO. 3102/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 [PANDEY VINODKUMAR JAGDAMBA PRASAD VS. ITO] PAGE 4 PAID IN THE LEGAL AID AND AFTER THAT, MATTER SHOULD BE HEARD ON THE MERIT AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING ISSUE TO CIT(A) O N PRELIMINARY STAGE, WE ARE REFRAINING OURSELVES TO COMMENT ON ME RIT ON ISSUE AT HAND. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF APRIL, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER AHMEDABAD: DATED 22/04/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA & & & & ' ' ' ' ('% ('% ('% ('% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. +, / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. // 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. '45 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 589 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / & ,