M/s Aurobindo Precession Tools, Koraput V. ITO, Jeypore

ITA 350/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65127 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , S HRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 350/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 M/S.AUROBINDO PRECESSION TOOLS, AUROBINDO BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SUNABEDA, DIST. KORAPUT PAN:AAKFM 4968 R - - - VERSUS - INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, JEYPORE. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 24.09.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.09.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT THE CIT (APPEAL) IS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THE VIEW THAT THE LAO IS JU STIFIED IN NOT INFORMING THE REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT. 2. THAT THE CIT (APPEAL) IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE A/R HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE RATE OF ESTIMATION. 3. AFTER ESTIMATING THE NET INCOME THAT THE CIT HAS NOT ALLOWED DEPRE CIATION DEDUCTION AS DEDUCTION IS UNJUST AND AGAINST LAW. 2. NONE HAVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. NEITHER ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE AFTER HE ARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS ES TIMATION OF NET PROFIT DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION OVER AND ABOVE INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE U/S.144/147 WHEN I.T.A.NO. 350/CTK/2012 2 AFTER GIVING NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS THIS LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS OF NOW CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AS NO FURTHER MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INCOME THAT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT HAD NOT PARTICIPATE D IN THE ESTIMATION. NET PROFIT IS AFTER DEPRECIATION AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CHALLENGED INSOFAR AS IT WAS NEVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FIXED ASSETS ON WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION WERE NOT PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE FULLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT A PPEAL . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT DESPITE DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE , THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO IT AND THUS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITS APPEAL . THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE UPON GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS ELABORATED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 28.09.2012 ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 350/CTK/2012 3 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : M/S.AUROBINDO PRECESSION TOOLS, AUROBINDO BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SUNABEDA, DIST. KORAPUT 2 / THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICE R, WARD 2, JEYPORE. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 24.09.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE T YPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25.09.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNC EMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..