M/S IVES LEASING & FINANCE LTD., Indore V. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-1, Indore

ITA 358/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5938 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND GARG
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 358/IND/2015 A.Y. : 2005-06. IVES LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED, ADDITIONAL CIT, 504, CHETAK CENTRE, VS. RANGE I, R.N.T.MARG, INDORE INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AAACI3930Q APPELLANTS BY : SHRI ARVIND GARG, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.R.MEENA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04 .01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .01.2016 IVES LEASING 7 FINANCE LIMITED VS. ADDL CIT, RANGE -I, INDORE - .I.T.A.NO.358 /IND/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 2 2 O R D E R PER D.T.GARASIA, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 23.12.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS GROUND NO.3 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTI0ON OF SEC TION 251(2) OF THE ACT. 3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS. 4,09,424/- UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES. OUT OF THIS, A SUM OF RS. 1,97,677/ -WAS CLAIMED AS BAD DEBTS AND REMAINING RS. 2,11,747/- RELATE D TO EXPENDITURE ON OFFICE RENT, SALARIES, AUDIT FEE ETC . THE AO HAS DISALLOWED RS. 40,000/- OUT OF EXPENDITURE AND IVES LEASING 7 FINANCE LIMITED VS. ADDL CIT, RANGE -I, INDORE - .I.T.A.NO.358 /IND/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 3 3 ANOTHER OTHER EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) ENHANCED THE INCOME BY RS. 4,09,424/-. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) WHILE ENHANCING THE INCOME HAS NOT GIVEN THE MANDATORY NOTICE . THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) AN D CIT(A) SHOULD GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE ENHANCING THE INCOME. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE PROPOSING TO ENHANCE THE INCOME U/S 251(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE FINDIN G OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). IVES LEASING 7 FINANCE LIMITED VS. ADDL CIT, RANGE -I, INDORE - .I.T.A.NO.358 /IND/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 4 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JANUARY, 2016. SD/- (B.C.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 4 TH JANUARY, 2016. CPU*