M/s. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal, Rewari V. ITO, Rewari

ITA 379/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97602 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANJULA JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 379/DEL/2013 C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 379/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEA R-2009-10) RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL PROP. AGGARWAL GASES & INDUSTRIES C/O AGGARWAL TRADING COMPANY, CIRCULAR ROAD, OPP. P.N.B REWARI ABQPA8839E (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-1 AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MODEL TOWN REWARI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV.& SH. SOMIL AGRAWAL, C.A RESPONDENT BY SMT. ANJULA JAIN, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2012 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) ROHTAK. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ROHTAK HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT OF RS.97500/- OUT OF RS.173653/- ON THE PLEA THAT CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES WERE PAID IN CASH. HE HAS IG NORED ALL THE DATE OF HEARING 26.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.10.2015 2 ITA NO. 379/DEL/2013 FACTS, SUBMISSION AND VERSION OF LEDGER COPY FURNIS HED DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL AND IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEFO RE AO, REWARI. 2. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.2807 28/- OF EMPTY CYLINDERS PURCHASED IN MARCH 2008 AT RS.916359/- UP HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST FACTS, SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUME NTS ON RECORD. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY UPHELD THE DISALL OWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AT RS.134805/- OF VEHICLE TATA 407 ON THE FRESH PLEA THAT TRUCK WAS IN THE NAME OF AGGARWAL GASES & INDUSTRIES IGNORING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE PROP. OF THAT V ERY CONCERN. THE OTHER NAME C/O AGGARWAL TRADING COMPANY, CIRCULAR ROAD NEAR PNB REWARI IS ONLY THE POSTAL ADDRESS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF OXYGEN GAS AND TRADING IN OTHER IN DUSTRIAL GASES. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,30,550/-. T HE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,73,653/- ON BUILDING, RS. 3,5 0,742/- ON EMPTY CYLINDERS AND RS. 1,34,805/- ON TRUCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AS THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT FURNISH EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 4. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS ARE RELATE D TO DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO PURCHASE INVOICES, BILLS, LEDGER ACCOUNT ETC. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HUS, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE A.O FOR RE-V ERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS. 5. THE DR SUBMITS THAT SHE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIO N FOR REMITTING BACK THE MATTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 ITA NO. 379/DEL/2013 6. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THE RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AS RELATES TO DEPRECIATION ON BUILDIN G ON BUILDING, THE AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE PRODUCING SUPPORTING DOCU MENTS BY WAY OF BILLS BEFORE AO. THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED EARLIER AS T HE ASSESSEE WAS TAKING A WRONG STAND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE S AME U/S 40A (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS RELATES TO DEPRECIATION O R EMPTY CYLINDERS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT PURC HASE INVOICE DATED 28/3/2009 WAS THERE ON RECORD. THUS LD. CIT(A) SHO ULD HAVE LOOKED INTO THE ASPECT OF USE OF EMPTY CYLINDER ON OR BEFORE 30/3/2 009. INSTEAD, WITHOUT ANY REASON LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. REG ARDING DEPRECIATION ON PURCHASED TRUCK, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF P URCHASE INVOICE DATED 9/3/2009 AND COPY OF DIESEL BILL DATED 20/3/2009. THE SAME THOUGH LOOKED INTO BY LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS ASSESSING OFFICER, YE T, THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S AGGARWAL TRADING CO. AS WELL AS M /S AGGARWAL GASES & INDUSTRIES WAS IGNORED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. TH US, WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND VERIFYING THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECO RD, THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS A.O IN VERY HURRIED MANNER PASSED THE RESPECTIVE OR DERS UNDER CHALLENGE. UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY, IF THE IMPUGNED O RDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDI NG THESE ISSUES AFRESH AS PER LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASS ESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN SUCH FRESH ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA. RAO) (S UCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 4 ITA NO. 379/DEL/2013 DATED: 28/10/2015 R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.10.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.10.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .10..2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 28.10.2015 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 28.10.2015 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 5 ITA NO. 379/DEL/2013