M/s. Kashi Laminators Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow V. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD) , Lucknow

ITA 481/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 48123714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 481 TO 487/LKW/2013 A.YRS. :200 4 - 0 5 TO 2010 - 11 M/S KASHI LAMINATORS PVT. LTD. 536, KHA/14KA, IRADAT NAGAR, SITAPUR ROAD, LUCKNOW. PAN:AABCK2052J VS. JT.C.I.T. (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI VIVEK MISHRA, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 27/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMBINED ORDER OF CIT(A) - III, LUCKNOW DATED 20/03/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 2005 TO 2010 - 2011. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THESE APPEALS WERE DECIDED B Y CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) FILED WITH HIM ON 19/03/2013. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THIS DATE, NO ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED BY CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 20/03/2013. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN UNDER THESE FACTS, 2 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 CAN BE D ECIDED BECAUSE IN THESE YEARS , ONLY ONE ISSUE IS INVOLVED I.E. REGARDING AD HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND VEHICLE RUNNING & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS I SSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON AND ENGG. CO. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX AS REPORTED IN [2002] 253 ITR 749 (GUJ) . REGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 , HE SUBMIT TED THAT AS PER GROUND NO. 1 TO 4, THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IN OTHER YEARS BUT FOR THE SECOND ISSUE AS PER GROUND NO. 5 TO 8 WHICH IS RELATING TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,70,405/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED EXCESS STOCK FOUND ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 25/06/2009 AND FURTHER INCREASING THIS ADDITION FROM RS.2,70,405/ - TO RS.4,92,515/ - , THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PART DISALLOWANCE UPHELD BY CIT(A) IN ALL THESE YEARS IN RESPECT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, VEHICLE RUNNING & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ALONG WITH THE DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER T HE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON AND ENGG. CO. (SUPRA). THIS ADDITION IS THEREFORE DELETED IN ALL THE YEARS. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 , THERE IS NO OTHER ISSUE BUT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , THERE IS ONE MORE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.2,70,405/ - IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED 3 UNDISCLOSED EXCESS STOCK WHICH HAS BEEN ENHANCED BY CIT(A) TO RS.4,92,515/ - . ON THIS ISSUE, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFT ER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. HENCE, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE S IDES. THE REMAINING DISALLOWANCE IN THAT YEAR IS DELETED AND ALL THE DISALLOWANCES IN THE REMAINING SIX YEARS ARE ALSO DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. (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: 1 3 /06/2014. *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