Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 426/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 42623714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SWATI RATNA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

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.426/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 05 A.C.I.T. - 4, KANPUR. VS M/S SHIVAM MOTORS PVT. LTD., 84/105, G. T. ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AABCS9330D (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SMT. SWATI RATNA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 24/06/2015 DATE OF HEARING 30 /06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR DATED 28/02/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,22,250/ - CLAIMED ON PLANT & MACHINERY WITHOUT CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS. 2. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,32,735/ - AS I NCOME ON THE BASIS OF IDS CERTIFICATES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY LEADING TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF RS.1,32,735/ - . 2 3. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHEREAS THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS AFTER EXAMINING THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. 4. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,50,000/ - OUT OF REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHEREAS THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS AFTER EXAMINING THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND WITHOUT PO INTING OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. 5. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/ - OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHEREAS THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS AFTER EXAMINING THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. 6. BECAUSE T HE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,50,000/ - OUT OF GENERAL EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHEREAS THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS AFTER EXAMINING THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. 7. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD HO C AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/ - OUT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ON THE 3 GROUND THAT THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHEREAS THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BA SIS AFTER EXAMINING THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. 8. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - OUT OF SALES PROMOTIO N EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHEREAS THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS AFTER EXAMINING THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. 9. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/ - OUT OF INCENTIVE ON THE GROUND THAT THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HI M WHEREAS THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS AFTER EXAMINING THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT SHRI RAKESH GARG, F.C.A. WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE ENTIRE ORDER , THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO PROPER CONSIDERATION OF ANY SUBMISSION MADE BY SHRI RAKESH GARG. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REV ENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE BEEN PASSED AFTER HEARING LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HIS ORDER SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 4 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN HIS ORDER, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCE D SOME OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WHILE DISCUSSING AND DECIDING THE ISSUES, SUCH SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION. UNDER THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON ALL THE ISSUES AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE. HE SHOUL D PASS A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING BACK THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY OBSERVATION ON THE MERIT OF ANY OF THE SE ISSUES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUD ICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 /06/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR