Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur V. M/s Star Tannery, Kanpur

ITA 403/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 40323714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP SETH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.403/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003 - 04 A.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. VS. M/S STAR TANNERY, 19, 150 FT. ROAD, JAJMAU, KANPUR. PAN:AAFFS4764E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI PRADEEP SETH, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 08/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 1 /10/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR, DATED 28/02/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 2004. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBLE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FAILED TO PROVE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH SUNDRY CREDITORS. 2. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBLE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FAILED TO SUBSTANTIVE THE CAPITAL AND REVENUE 2 NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND RENEWALS EXPENSES. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, KANPUR DATED 28.02.2014 BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS, BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2006 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 8.2.1 AN D 8.2.2 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 8.2.1 AN ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/ - HAD BEEN MADE ON THREE GROUND BY A.O. 1 . EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE BUT CLAIMED AS REVENUE. THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT ITEM PERTAIN TO REPAIR OF MACHINERY. I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE DETAILS FILED. THESE EXPENSES ARE APPARENTLY PERTAIN TO DAY TO DAY RUNNING OF MACHINERY AND THEREFORE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENSES. 2 . SUNDRY CREDITORS NOT VERIFIED. A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS VERIFIED THE ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITOR AND NOTHING ADVERSE WAS FOUND. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE MADE. 3 . ADDITION TO CAPITAL A/C: A.O. IN REMAND REPORT HAS REPRESENTS THAT ALL ADDITION ARE FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES & VERIFIABLE. I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE ACCOUNTS & FIND ; THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN. 8.2.2 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT A.O. HAD MADE AN AD - HOC ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/ - FOR WHICH NO FINDING WAS GIVEN. AFTER EXAMINING THE MATTE R AFRESH THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT 3 HAS NOT FOUND ANYTHING ADVERSE. ADDITION MADE ON ABOVE BASIS IS THEREFORE DELETED. 4.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANYTHING ADVERSE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 1 /10/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWA RDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR