AMAL LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3970/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3760 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K K VED
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3970/MUM/2011 ITA NO.3971/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94 AMAL LTD. VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR PRABHADEVI, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, DADAR(W) MUMBAI -400 028 / VS. D CIT 2 ( 1 ) MUMBAI- (REVENUE ) (RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. A AACA1041J ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.K. VED (AR) REVENUE BY SHRI GANESH BARE (DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 05/07/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 03/08/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI, {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, WHERE IN IDENTICAL AMAL LTD. 2 ISSUE IS INVOLVED AND THEREFORE THESE HAVE BEEN HEA RD TOGETHER AND BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI K.K. VED, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI GANESH BARE, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP ITA NO. 3970/MUM/2011 3. GROUND NOS.2 & 3: IN THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKIN G DISALLOWANCE OF NAPHTHALENE SET-OFF OF RS.18,34,425 /-. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS. IN THE FIRST ROUND, IT WAS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THIS LOSS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS TRADING LOSS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION OF FACTS WERE NEEDED. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT PASSING ANY SPEAKI NG ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THIS LOSS WAS RELATED TO ROHA FACTORY W HICH WAS SOLD IN JUNE 1993 WHEN THE BUSINESS WAS DISCONTINUE D. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THIS LOSS RELATED TO THE UN IT WHICH WAS SOLD IN JUNE 1993, NO SUCH LOSS CAN BE ALLOWED TO T HE ASSESSEE. 3.1. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACTS AND GAVE CONTRADICTORY FIND INGS AND THEREFORE, THE SAID LOSS HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY DIS ALLOWED. 3.2. PER CONTRA, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. AMAL LTD. 3 3.3. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD HIMSELF STAT ED THAT BUSINESS WAS DISCONTINUED IN JUNE 1993, THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. THUS, THE CONCERNED FINANC IAL YEAR IS 1992-93, WHEREIN THE BUSINESS WAS VERY MUCH IN E XISTENCE AS PER OWN FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE ARE FACTUALL Y INCORRECT. NO OTHER BASIS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR CONFIRMING THE D ISALLOWANCE BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, CORRECTING THE MISTAKE DON E BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE ALLOW THIS LOSS. THUS GROUND NO.1 & 2 AR E ALLOWED. 4. GROUND NOS.3 & 4: IN THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE MERELY ARGUED THAT ONLY AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION IS REQUIR ED TO BE GIVEN TO AO TO REINFORCE THE DIRECTION ALREADY GIVE N BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION FOR THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF RS. 21,33,089/- 4.1. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND FOUND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR DIRECTION TO AO VIDE PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND VERIFY T HE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.21,33,089/- AND ALLOW IT AS PER LAW. WE ALSO DIRECT THE AO TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL AND THEREFORE, DISMI SSED. NOW WE SHALL TAKE ITA NO.3971/MUM/2011 6. WITH REGARD TO THIS APPEAL, IT WAS STATED BY THE L D. COUNSEL THAT IN CASE RELIEF IS ALLOWED IN ITA NO.3970/MUM/2 011, THEN THIS APPEAL MAY BE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. SINCE, W E HAVE AMAL LTD. 4 ALLOWED RELIEF IN ITA NO.3970/MUM/2011 AS WAS REQUE STED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISS THE SAME AS SUCH. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 03/08/2016 CTX? P.S/. .. #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % &' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()&' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * * ( % ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. * * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -. / (01 , * % 012 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / 34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) -% ( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI