Shree Agarwal Industries, Shahjahanpur V. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bareilly

ITA 339/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4358 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.339/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 JCIT, RANGE-1, BAREILLY VS SHREE AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, GANDHI GANJ, SHAHJAHANPUR PAN AAKFS 7412 E (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI SANJAY SAXENA, CA APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 15/07/2016 DATE OF HEARING 20 /0 7 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THAT THE ID. CIT(A), BAREILLY ERRED ON FACTS A ND IN LAW IS PASSING EX- PARTE ORDER IGNORING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SE NT VERY BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING AS THE A.R WAS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW IN CONNECTION WITH OTHE R APPEAL. 2) THAT THE ID. CIT(A), BAREILLY ERRED ON FACTS AN D IS CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25,000/- OUT OF HANDLING & WAGE S EXPENSES. 3) THAT THE ID. CIT(A), BAREILLY ERRED ON FACTS AN D IS CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,288/- OUT OF CASH & QUALITY D ISCOUNT EXPENSES. 4) THAT THE ID. C1T(A), BAREILLY ERRED ON FACTS AN D IS CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/- OUT OF ELECTRICITY EXP ENSES. 5) THE APPELLANT FIRM RESERVES A RIGHT TO ADD/ALTE R/AMEND ANY GROUND AT THE TIME OF ITS HEARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE A DHOC DISALLOWANCES 2 UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS WITHOUT POINTING ANY DEFECTS. THE CIT(A) SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE EXP LANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT HIS ACCOUNT IS DULY AUDITED AND HE HAS MAINTAI NED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DIS ALLOWANCES WITHOUT POINTING OUT SPECIFIC DEFECT IN ANY OF THE CLAIM. T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON PURELY ADHOC BASIS WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. 4. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SIMPLY MADE THE ADHO C DISALLOWANCES WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSI BLE UNDER THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DE LETE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ADHOC BASIS. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- (S.K. YAD AV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/07/2016 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. REGISTRAR