Shree Ram Straw Products Ltd., Kashipur V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4788/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5704 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAYANAND MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 69C; 234B; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4682/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ITO, WARD 8(3), ROOM NO. 196A, C.R. BLDG., NEW DELHI. VS. M/S SHREE RAM STRAW PRODUCTS LTD. CHAMUNDA VIHAR, RAMNAGAR ROAD, KASHIPUR. AAGCS7117K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & ITA NO. 4782/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S SHREE RAM STRAW PRODUCTS LTD. CHAMUNDA VIHAR, RAMNAGAR ROAD, KASHIPUR. AAGCS7117K VS. ITO, WARD 8(3), ROOM NO. 196A, C.R. BLDG., NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S. KRISHNAN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: GAYANAND MEENA, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE CROSS APPEALS. THEY ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 20 TH OCTOBER,2009 FOR AY 2006-07. 2 ITA NOS. 4682 & 4782/DEL/2009 GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDE R : - 1. LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS AND IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,11,80,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPIT AL. 2. LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,43,02,844/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUNDS APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEA RING OF THIS APPEAL. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UND ER : - 1. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO PROVIDE RE ASONABLE, SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT COMMENSUR ATE WITH ITS PREDICAMENT AND DISABILITIES AND THUS, FRAMING THEI R ORDERS ARBITRARILY AND PRECITATELY. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE BY NOT GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APP ELLANT TO FILE FRESH EVIDENCE & DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IN COME TAX RULES. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW & FACTS O F THE CASE BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 1,23,56,000/-, BEING THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, AS APPELLANTS INCOME US/ 68 OF I.T. ACT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2,03,70,000/-, BEING THE SHARE CAPITAL, AS APPELLANTS INCOME U/S 68 OF THE I. TAX ACT. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,97,85,886/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE BY DISALLOWING RS. 9,68,76,930/- UNDER THE HEAD MANUF ACTURING EXPENSES AND RS. 21,65,127/- UNDER THE HEAD ADMIN ISTRATIVE EXPENSES U/S 69C OF THE I.T. ACT, IN VIEW OF THE F ACT THAT AL THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE DULY VOUCHED & REFLECTED IN T HE BOOKS OF 3 ITA NOS. 4682 & 4782/DEL/2009 ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT & HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY TH E AUDITORS IN THEIR AUDITOR REPORT UNDER COYS ACT AND TAX AUDIT R EPORT U/S 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW & FACT S OF THE CASE BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN RESPECT OF THE I NCOME DERIVE BY THE APPELLANT FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN CERTAI N SPECIFIED STATE U/S 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. THAT THE LD. AO & CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS O F THE CASE BY CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AN D IN ANY OTHER EVENT THE INTEREST CHARGED IS EXCESSIVE & ARBITRARY . 9. THAT THE ORDERS OF AO AS WELL AS OF CIT(A) ARE AGAI NST LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RESERVE ITSELF T O ADD, DELETE, AMEND AND FOREGO ANY GROUND AT OR BEFORE THE TIME O F HEARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS THE COMMON CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CAS E SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO BE FRAMED DENOVO BY THE AO. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES CONSIDERING WHICH CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY CIT(A). SIMILARLY IN ABSENCE OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE CERTAIN ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T ASSESSEE STILL WANTS TO FILE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT ITS CASE. THUS, IT WAS THE COMMON CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT ASSESSME NT IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO FRAME THE SAME DENOVO AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT ASSESSEE WILL EXTEND THE UTMOST CORPORATION TO THE AO FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF T HE ASSESSMENT 4 ITA NOS. 4682 & 4782/DEL/2009 PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. DR ALSO REQUESTED FOR THE RES TORATION OF THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT. 3. IN THIS SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIE S, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THEIR REQUEST WE RESTORE THE ENTIRE A SSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. LD. AO WILL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE A ND AFTER GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY HE WILL REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AS PER P ROVISIONS OF LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.3.2010 (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) VICE PRESIDENT (I.P. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12.3.2010 *KAVITA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR