Mohan Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

ITA 339/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100423 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.339/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITO, WARD 6(1), VAIBHAV BHAWAN, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR VS MOHAN ICE & COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. FLAT NO. 604, RATAN PLANET APARTMENT, NARAMAU KANPUR PAN AADCM 6739 J (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI R.R. JAIN, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 09 / 10 /2015 DATE OF HEARING 16 / 10 /2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, PASSED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, AS SAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- THE EX-PARTE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY LD-C.I.T. ( APPEAL WHEREBY ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE BY LD. HAV E BEEN SUSTAINED IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED, AND ERRONEOU S AND AS THUS DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE:- 1. THAT LD. C.I.T. (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW PASSIN G THE ORDER EX-PARTE WHEREBY ADDITIONS & DISALLOWANCES MADE VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. 2 2. WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N ON ICE PLANT, LD. C.I.T. 9(APPEAL) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DEPRECIATION ON ICE PLANT WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER LAW IN FACT & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. LD. C.I.T. (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15000/-(RS. FIFTEEN THOUSAND ONLY) BEING A PART OF THE EXPENDITURE ON TRAVELLING EXPENSES IN AS MUCH AS HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE SUFFERED FROM THE VICE OF ADHVOCISM. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ATTENTION WAS INVI TED TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(A) H AS RECORDED DATES OF HEARING OF NOTICE BUT HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FACT WITH REGARD TO SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUMMARILY WITHOUT DEALING ISSU E ON MERIT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE S ET ASIDE. 3. LD. DR SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED VARIOUS DATES OF ISSUANCE O F NOTICE BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN RECORDED IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE O F HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AF FORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16/10/2015 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIST RAR