Shri Shivkumar Krishnakumar Vaid, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 370/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4116 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE
• Assessee Lawyers: A L THAKKER
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.370/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SHIVKUMAR KRISHNAKUMAR VAID SHIV ENTERPRISE 389/5, CHANGODAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OPP. VIPUL PROTEIN, CHANGODAR AHMEDABAD-382213 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3)(1) AHMEDABAD [PAN NO. AAOPV 6811 C] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. L. THAKKER, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 13/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/ 08 /2018 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS)-10, AHMEDABAD [LD.CIT(A) IN SHORT] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012 -13 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2015 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDAB AD. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL IS AGAINST THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.15,01,410/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN NON GE NUINE EXPENSES BEING 20% OF RS.75,07,052/- COMPRISING OF LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS. 12,28,970/- AND TRANSPORTATION - 2 - ITA NO.370/AHD/2017 SHIVKUMAR KRISHNAKUMAR VAID VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 EXPENSES OF RS.62,78,082/-. FURTHER THAT, THE CONF IRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,58,533/- MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING 1/5 TH OF CERTAIN EXPENSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION ON CAR AS ALSO ADDITION OF RS.6,110/- FOR THE INTEREST ON INC OME TAX REFUND WAS ALSO CHALLENGED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LD. ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S PASSED THE ORDER EX-PARTE ON MERIT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. ADVOCAT E, THOUGH THE MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON FEW OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE DUE TO SOME DIFFICULTIES COULD NOT REPRESENT HIS CASE PROPERLY AND THEREFORE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED BEFORE US TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FO R CONSIDERING THE SAME AFRESH UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, HOWEVER, DID NOT OPPOSE TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. WE FI ND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WHEN AD JOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAIL ED TO APPEAR WHEN THE MATTER WAS FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING UPON NOTICE TO HIM BY THE REVENUE . HOWEVER, FOR THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE FEEL THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ANOTHER CHANCE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW AND THUS WE CONSIDE R IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME AFRESH. W E, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION UPON HIM TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES AF RESH UPON GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO UPON TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD OR THE EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSE E MAY CHOOSE TO FILE FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CL EAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL CO-OPERATE - 3 - ITA NO.370/AHD/2017 SHIVKUMAR KRISHNAKUMAR VAID VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 DURING THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). W E THEREFORE ALLOW THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07/ 08 /2018 SD/- S D/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/ 08 /2018 .., . ../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABAD 5. !'# , $ , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. #() / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ! / //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..13.7.18 (DICTATION-PAD 2- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13.7.18 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.7.8.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7.8.18 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER