Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4871 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
8 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
22-12-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
Not Allotted
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
07-04-2016
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 322/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN 128, KRISHNA MARG, KASTURBA NAGAR NIRMAN NAGAR JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 3(1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ADHPJ 7895 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08/12/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 /12/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 15-01-2016 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WE RE SOLELY BASED ON AUDIT PARA ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 2 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A)-1,JAI PUR HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE FOLLOWING ADDIT IONS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS:- (A) RS. 3,60,000/- DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR ALL EGED NOT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IGNORING THE FACT THAT T HE DEDUCTEES (I.E. THE RECIPIENTS OF AMOUNT FROM THE A SSESSEE) HAD FURNISHED THE FORM 15-I (B) RS. 1,903/- REPRESENTING DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT R ECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE WRITTEN DOWN VAL UE OF ASSET, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE ALL OWABLE DEPRECIATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 32 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR ABANDON ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2.1 NONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE WRITTEN SU BMISSION WAS FILED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE PRAYER TO DECID E THE APPEAL ON MERIT ACCORDINGLY. 3.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.1.2 (I) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS USING OWN TRUCK AS WELL AS HIRED TRUCKS AND OTHER HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES OWNED BY OTHE RS. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 25- 10- 2010 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,07,380/ AGAI NST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 4,07,380/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, TH E CASE OF ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 3 THE APPELLANT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY IS SUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 29-08-2012 I.E. WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 8,71,150/- U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT ON 29-08-2013. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT OR DER MADE U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER SOUGHT REASON FOR REOPENING THE CASE U/S 14 7 OF THE ACT NOR RAISED ANY OBJECTION BEFORE THE AO AND PART ICIPATED IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (II) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS THE CONTE NTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WER E INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE AUDIT PARTY ONLY AND THUS THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, IT RELIED ON A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. (III) IT IS NOTED FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THE ISSUES ON WHICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITI ATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE NOT LOOKED INTO BY THE AO. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT THE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS REOPENED HAS BE EN EXAMINED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT. (IV) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.V.S. BEEDIES (P) LTD. 237 ITR 13 HELD AS UNDER:- IT APPEARED THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS DONE BECAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT DONATIONS MADE T O CHARITABLE TRUST WERE HELD BY THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80G. BUT SUBS EQUENTLY IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT PARTY THAT T HE RECOGNITION WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE TRUST HAD EXPIRED ON 22-09- 1972. THAT MEANS IT HAD EXPIRED BEFORE 1-04-1973. T HEREFORE, IN THE RELEVANT YEARS OF ACCOUNT THIS TRUST WAS NO T A RECOGNISED CHARITABLE TRUST. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE DONATION TO TRUST DID NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0G AS A ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 4 DONATION MADE TO A RECOGNISED CHARITY. BOTH THE TR IBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT WERE IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE I NFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT PARTY COULD NOT BE TRE ATED AS INFORMATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147(B) . THE AUDIT PARTY HAD MERELY POINTED OUT A FACT WHICH HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT. THE FA CT THAT THE RECOGNITION GRANTED TO THIS CHARITABLE TRUST HAD EX PIRED ON 22- 09-1972, WAS NOT NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF INFORMATION ON A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DIS PUTE AS TO WHETHER RE OPENING IS PERMISSIBLE AFTER THE AUDIT PARTY EXPRESSES AN OPINION ON A QUESTION OF LAW IS NOW B EING CONSIDERED BY A LARGER BENCH OF THIS COURT. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT THE AUDIT PARTY IS ENTITLED TO POINT O UT A FACTUAL ERROR OR OMISSION IN THE ASSESSMENT. REOPENING OF T HE CASE ON THE BASIS OF A FACTUAL ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE AU DIT PARTY IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. IN VIEW OF THAT WE HOLD THA T REOPENING OF THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147(B) IN THE FACTS OF T HIS CASE WAS ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INTE RNAL AUDIT PARTY AND WAS VALID IN LAW. THE JUDGMENT UNDER APP EAL IS SET ASIDE TO THIS EXTENT. (V) THUS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISI ON OF HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT IT UPHELD THE REOPENING U U147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL MATTERS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF AO THROUGH AUDIT PARA. IT IS A MATER OF FACT THA T THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKI NG PAYMENT TO SUB-CONTRACTOR (SHRI ARIHANT JAIN) AND I N VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE SAID AMOUNT IS TO BE ADDED TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF RAYMONDS WOOLEN LTD. 236 ITR 34 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT TH AT THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO BY THE COURTS FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. (200 7) 291 ITR 500 (SC), IT WAS HELD BY THE APEX COURT THAT I F THE AO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INC OME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO REOP EN THE ASSESSMENT. (VI) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE CASE OF THE ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 5 APPELLANT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 3.2 I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY TH E LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE FIGURES OF THE PR OFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE AMOUNT OF TRAILER RENT OF RS. 3,60,000/- WAS SH OWN AS IN INDEPENDENT ITEM OF EXPENSE. FURTHER THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO SHOWN IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AS PAYMENTS TO SPECIFIED PERSONS U/S 40A(2)( B). THUS, IT COULD NOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE AO HAD NOT VERIFIED THE EXPENS E ABOUT ITS ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE AS STATED BY THE LD. CIT( A). THE AO IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE ALL THAT AS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE ENQUIRIES TO BE PART OF ASSESSMENT ORDE R WHERE HE IS NOT SATISFIED AND WHERE HE HOLDS DIFFERENT VIEWS. THE D ECISION OF THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ARVIND BHARTIYA VIDHYAL AYA SAMTI VS. ITO [XXXII TAX WORLD 155 (2004) RELIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE IS SQUARELY FIT TO THE PRESENT CASE WHEREIN THE HONBLE BENCH HELD AS SUCH. THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK FURTH ER REVEALS THAT THE CASE WAS REOPENED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE MAJOR AUDIT PARA. THIS INDICATES THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT . THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 6 LAWS WHICH WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. FURTHER I N THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER VS. SHRI NAKHAT SINGH BHATI [49 TAX WORLD 111 (JODHPUR)] ORDER DATED 14.02.2013 FOR THE A.Y.2008-09, IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF T HE ACT WAS SOLELY BASED ON THE OBJECTION OF AUDIT PARA, THEREFORE THE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT VALID. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147 IS NULL & VOID. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN SUSTAINING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HOLD THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AS NULL AND VOID. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO RESTORE THE TOTAL INCOME AS DETERMINED U/S 143(3) V IDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2010 AS THE ASSESSED INCOME FOR THE AY 2008- 09. 4.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 (A) AND 2(B) OF THE ASSESS EE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDE R:- 3.2.2 DETERMINATION 2(A) (I) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 3,60,000/- TO SHRI ARIHANT JAIN WITHOUT TDS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND THE APPELLANT FAIL ED TO FILE FORM NO. 15-I WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME WITH THE P RESCRIBED AUTHORITY. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194(C(3) OF THE ACT AND THE R ULE 29D OF THE IT RULES AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 7 194C (3) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (1) OR SUB-SECTION 2(2) FROM (I) THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKEL Y TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF, OR TO, THE CONT RACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR, IF SUCH SUM DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY THOUSANDS RUPEES. PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH SUMS CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR P AID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, T HE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SUCH SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB -SECTION (1) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL B E LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME TAX [UNDER THIS SECTION] PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB- SECTION (2), FROM THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOODS CARRIAGES ON PRODUCTION OF A DECLARATION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED PAYING OR CREDI TING SUCH SUM, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRE SCRIBED MANNER AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MANY BE PRESCRIBED, IF SUCH SUB-CONTRACTOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT OWNED M ORE THAN TWO GOODS CARRIAGES AT ANY TIME DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYIN G ANY SUM AS AFORESAID TO THE SUB-CONTRACTOR REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PROVISO SHALL FURNISH TO THE PRESCRIBED INCO ME TAX AUTHORITY OR THE PERSON AUTHORIZED B IT SUCH PARTIC ULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN SUCH FORM AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED: OR FORM OF DECLARATION UNDER SECOND PROVISO / THIRD PE RSON TO CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194 C ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 8 29D.(1) THE DECLARATION UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO CLAUSE (I) AND SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194C BY A SUB- CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IN FORM NO. 15-I AND SHALL BE V ERIFIED IN THE MANNER INDICATED THEREIN BY SUCH SUB-CONTRACTOR (2) THE DECLARATION REFERRED TO IN SUB-RULE (1) MAY BE FURNISHED TO THE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING OR CREDITING ANY SUM TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUB-CONTRAC TOR BEFORE THE EVENT OF SUCH SUM BEING CREDITED OR PAID TO SUCH SUB-CONTRACTOR. (3) THE PARTICULARS UNDER THE THIRD PROVISO TO CLAU SE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (3)OF SECTION 194C TO BE FURNISHED BY A CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO SUCH S UB- CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IN FORM NO. 15J (4) THE PARTICULARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-RULE (3) SHA LL BE FURNISHED. (I) TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SO DESIGNATE D BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WITHIN WHOSE AREA OF JURISDICTION, THE OFFICE OF THE CONTRACTOR REFERRED TO IN SUB- RULE (3) IS SITUATED. (II) THUS IT IS NOTED FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS TH AT IF THE CONTRACTOR RECEIVES FORM NO. 15-I FROM ANY SUB-CONT RACTOR FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, THEN THE SAID 1 5-I SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE DESIGNATED COMMISSIONER WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. (III) IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT A T THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE ORIGINAL FORM 15-I W ERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND BEING FULLY SATISFIED, T HE AO DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE, HOWEVER, THE APPELL ANT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTION WITH ANY EVID ENCE. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE A.R. WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE EVIDENCE WHEN THE FORM NO.15-I WAS ISSUED BY SH RI ARIHANT JAIN WERE FILED WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORI TY, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED AND IT WAS SUBM ITTED ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 9 THAT THE SAME IS NOT TRACEABLE. THUS THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 29D AND IT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AND THUS VIOLATED THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. (IV) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE A.R. REL IED UPON THE CASE OF SHYAM SUNDER KAILASH CHAND VS. ITO (ITAT-JAIPUR), ITO VS. RAJESH KR GARG (ITAT- KOLKAT A) AND KARWAT STEEL TRADERS VS. ITO (ITAT MUMBAI). I HAV E GONE THROUGH THE SAID DECISIONS AND FOUND THEM TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN ALL OF THEM, THE REL EVANT FORMS WERE FILED WITH THE CONCERNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FILED THOUGH SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. (V) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I A) OF THE ACT. DETERMINATION 2 (VII) THIS GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDI TION OF RS. 1,903/- BEING AMOUNT RELATING TO INSURANCE CLAI M RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE WDV OF MOTOR CYCLE AS APPEARING IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE MOTOR CYCLE WAS FORMING PART OF BLOCK OF PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR COMPUTATION OF DEPRECIATION. AS PER RULES, THE AMOU NT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE, DISCARD ETC. THE ACTUAL AMOUNT IS REDUCED FROM THE VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSET BEFORE CALCULATING THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE GROSS AMOUNT REC EIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS REDUCED FORM THE VALUE OF BLO CK OF PLANT AND MACHINERY BEFORE THE CALCULATING THE DEPRECIATI ON FOR THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE CLAIM OVER THE WDV HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING THE TAXABLE BUSINESS INCOME AS THE DEPREC IATION FOR THE YEAR HAS BEEN CALCULATED AT THE REDUCED VALUE OF BL OCK OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR . 10 (VIII) THE SAME SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO MADE BEFORE THE AO BUT WITHOUT ANY DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. DUR ING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED TO VERIFY TH E VERACITY OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, NO RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS R EJECTED. SINCE IT HAS BEEN HELD IN GROUND NO. 1 (SUPRA) THA T REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL AND VOID, THEREFORE, THE GROUN D NO. 2 (A) & (B) OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND D O NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 5.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 /12/ 2016 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 /12/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 3 (1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 332/JP/2016 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR
