The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal V. M/s Daulatram Industreis, Bhopal

ITA 311/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 31122714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.311/IND/2012 A.Y.2007-08 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1), BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS M/S DAULATRAM INDUSTRIES BHOPAL PAN AAAFD7012M :: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE DATE OF HEARING 31.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.08 .2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, BHOPAL. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IS THAT ON THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING 2 THE ADDITION OF RS.69,65,952/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF D EDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 2. DURING HEARING, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI R.A. VERMA, L EARNED SENIOR DR AND SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RE VENUE IS THAT THE CLAIMED EXPENSES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND SUCH NECESSARY DETAILS WERE NEVER FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE AU DIT REPORT WAS NOT FILED IN FORM NO. 10CCB FOR CLAIMING SUCH DEDU CTION FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FINDINGS CON TAINED IN PARA 4 ONWARDS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER A SSERTED THAT EVEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE O BSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT TOO WITHOUT SEEKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.S. DES HPANDE, STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE FACT UALLY INCORRECT AND NECESSARY DETAILS WERE VERY MUCH FILE D BEFORE THE AO AND AS SUCH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DESE RVES TO BE UPHELD. 3 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT VIDE QU ESTIONNAIRE DATED 17 TH APRIL, 2009 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC I N THE PRESCRIBED FORM. HOWEVER, AS PER THE AO, NO SUCH D ETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN THE APPELLATE O RDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) NEITHER SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOR CONTROVERTED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT MERELY BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AUDIT REPORT. MERE FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ALLOWI NG THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WITHOUT FULFILLING ALL THE NECES SARY CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. NO FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING SUC H CLAIM U/S 80IC HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERE NCE TO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AND FOR WHICH NO REASONING MU CH LESS A COGENT REASONING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). WIT HOUT DELIBERATING FURTHER AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCI PLE THAT NO PREJUDICE SHOULD BE CAUSED TO EITHER SIDE, WE REMAN D THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIREC TION TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE SAME AFRES H IN 4 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, B E PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.16,29,362/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED TO H AVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF CLAIMED EXPENSE S ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS REGARDING FOREIGN TRAVELLING, PO OJA EXPENSES, HORTICULTURAL EXPENSES, TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES, PR OFESSIONAL AND LEGAL CONSULTANCY, OTHER SELLING EXPENSES, DONATION S, GIFTS AND FOUNDATION DAY CELEBRATION, ETC. THERE IS A SPECIFI C MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE BILLS AND VOUCHERS/NECESSARY DETAILS FOR VERIFICATI ON EXCEPT LEDGER ACCOUNT IN SPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDE D TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ALSO ASKED TO EXPL AIN AS TO WHY THE EXPENSES MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 AND 8 (OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PAGE 2) WHICH WERE NOT INCURRED FO R BUSINESS PURPOSES, MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED. AS PER THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THESE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED. HE, THEREFORE, DISAL LOWED THE SAME. 5 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) MADE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BI LLS AND VOUCHERS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AND REDUCED THE DISALL OWANCE TO RS. 24,13,627/- OUT OF EXPENSES OF RS.40,42,989/- T HAT TOO WITHOUT SEEKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO OR CONTRO VERTING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE EXP ENSES ALLOWED AS WELL AS DISALLOWANCES CONFIRMED BY HIM AND REMAN D THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT T O ALL THE EXPENSES SO CLAIMED AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENC E, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, IN TERMS INDICATE D HEREINABOVE. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 6 THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 6 TH AUGUST, 2012. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 6 TH AUGUST, 2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-311