ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Ridhima India Services, New Delhi

ITA 397/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91060 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI AT VARKEY, JM ITA NO. 397 /DEL/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 09 ITO, WARD 33 ( 2 ) VS. RIDHIMA INDIA SERVICES ROOM NO. 206 B C 161, 4 TH FLOOR, HEMKUNT HOUSE C.R.BLDG. IP ESTATE GAUTAM NAGAR NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AA JFR 6317 G C.O.NO. 96 /DEL/201 3 (IN ITA 397 /DEL/201 2 ) AY: 200 8 - 09 RIDHIMA INDIA SERVICES VS. ITO, WARD 33(2) NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: - SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: - NONE O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) - XXVI, NEW DELHI DT. 20.10.2011 PERTAINING TO THE AY 200 8 - 09 . THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 2. NONE APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUAL OF NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DISPOSE OF THE CASE EX PARTE ON MERITS QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. HEARD LD.SR.D.R. MR.VIKRAM SAHAY. 4. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE FIRST A PP ELLATE AUTHORITY DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 43B OF THE ACT, FOR NON PAYMENT O F SERVICE TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.9,62,674/ - . 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS NOT RO R TED THE SERVICE TAX IN QUESTION THROUGH ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT. IT ACCOUNTED FOR SERVICE TAX SEPARATELY AND HAD SHOWN IT AS A LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION TOWARDS PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX DURING THE YEAR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION OF DISAL LOWANCE U/S 43B OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE. 6. GROUND NO.2 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DELETION OF AN ADDITION OF R E N T O F RS.1,20,000/ - MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE S BUSINESS. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PARA 5.3 OF HIS ORDER. ON PERUSING THE SAME WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRIES NOR BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE PREMISES 3 HAS BEEN USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS W E DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST DELETION OF AN ADDITION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS. THIS ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND TH AT THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRIES. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE CROSS OBJECTION I S IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE S C.O. HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 10. IN THE RESULT REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEE S C.O. ALSO IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 2 0 T H MAY, 2015 . S D / - S D / - ( A.T. VARKEY ) ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 2 0 T H MAY, 2015 *MANGA 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR