M/s Hindustan Ferro & Industries Ltd., Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-6(1), Kanpur

ITA 356/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100436 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Notional interest

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.356/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(1), KANPUR VS M/S HINDUSTAN FERRO & INDUSTRIES LTD., 3/190, VISHNUPURI, KANPUR PAN AAACH 5670 A (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 16 / 10 /2015 DATE OF HEARING 21/10/2015 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, ASSAIL ING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UND ER:- 1. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 2. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II , KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.902831.0 0 ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY LD. A O IN ASSESSME NT ORDER. 3. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II , KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.45,50,000.00 ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT WAIVED OFF BY UPFC UNDER OTS MADE BY LD. A O IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2 4. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.56,73,435.00 BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 1 (1) MADE BY ID, A O IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ON WRONG NOTIONS. 5. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.761494.0 0 ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES IN IN-OPERATING UNITS MADE BY I D. A O IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,81,022.00 ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST NOT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.66,181.00 ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 8. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,000.0 0 ON ACCOUNT OF LISTING FEE U/S 43B. 9. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,0 00.00 ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY. 10. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUFFERS FROM LEGAL IN FIRMITY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSING THE ORDER AND THE OFFICER ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143 (2) WERE DIFFERENT IN RANK A ND APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ANY ORDER FOR CHANGE OF JURISDI CTION. 11. THAT ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS GROU ND-WISE AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING AND NOT PASSING SPEAKING O RDER. 12. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO INTRODUCE, W ITHDRAW OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL WITH THE KIND PERMISSIO N OF YOUR HONOUR. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ATTENTION WAS INVI TED TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED DATES OF HEARING OF NOTICE BUT HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FACT WIT H REGARD TO SERVICE OF 3 NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUMMARILY WITHOUT DEALING ISSUE ON MERIT. THEREFORE , THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET 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 OF NO TICE BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN RECORDED IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HE ARING 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 ASI DE 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. 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: 21/10/2015 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. RE GISTRAR