ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Samson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5288/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90937 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V M CHAURASIA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 115JB; 131; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5288/ DEL/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5288 /DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2008 - 09 ACIT, CIRCLE7(1), NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 238B, 2 ND FLOOR, CR BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS. M/S SAMSON LABORATORIES PVT. LTD., KHASRA NO. 894, SHIV MANDIR LANE, ALI PUR, NEW DELHI 110 092 (PAN: AAACS1247Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. B.R.R. KUMAR, SR. DR. ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, CA & SH. V.M. CHAURASIA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 4 - 201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 17 - 4 - 201 5 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH E REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL A GAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - X, NEW DELHI DATED 31 . 7 .201 3 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 26,57,961/ - I.E. 30% OF THE TOTAL EXPEN SES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 5288/ DEL/ 2013 2 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME NIL ON 13.10.2008. AO PROCESSED THE RETURN U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. LATER ON THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 3.8.2009 AND SERVED, FIXING THE CASE FOR 20.8.2009. AO AG AIN ISSUED A FRESH NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT ALONGWITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 3.8.2010, FIXING THE DATE FOR HEARING ON 13.8.2010, HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH PENALTY NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(B) FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND HEARING WAS FIXED ON 11.10.2010. AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE WAS RECEIVED. A FRESH NOTICE DATED 25.10.2010 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REPRESENTING ITS CASE ON 29.10.2010 BUT NOTHING WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. AO ISSUED A FINAL NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 22.11.2010 FOR HEARING ON 25.11.2010 AND AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS PROCESS , SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO THE DIRECTORS O F THE COMPANY FOR THEIR COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AO ON OR BEFORE 8.12.2010 , BUT NO COMPLIANCE HA S BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS ALSO. SINCE THE MATTER IS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31.12.2010 AND NO ITA NO. 5288/ DEL/ 2013 3 COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, T HE AO HAD NO OTHER OPTION THAN , EXCEPT TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE AO FINALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE VERACITY OF EXPE NSES, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE DISALLOWED 30% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES I.E. RS. 88,59,870/ - WHICH COMES TO RS. 26,57,961/ - AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 10.12.2010. 3. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE A BOVE ORDER AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AN D RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON - COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE AO, BUT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPLICAT ION UNDER RULE 46 FOR ADMISSION OF ITA NO. 5288/ DEL/ 2013 4 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE DETAILS OF BALANCE - SHEET, AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND OTHER SUPPORTING DETAILS , IN SUPPORT OF ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS AND THE AO HAS NOT RAISED ANY O BJECTION ON THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESPECIALLY ON THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY HOLDING THAT AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM AND AO HAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESEE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE IN DISPUTE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM U/S. 80IC AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE THE PAYMENT ON DUE TAXES U/S. 115JB IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR I.E. 2009 - 10. A COPY OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH SHOWS THAT THE CLAIM U/S. 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT HAD ALSO BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO IN 2009 - 10 AND THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S. 80IC MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES U/S. 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION U /S. 80IC FOR GROSS TOTAL INCOME RESULTING IN A TOTAL INCOME OF NIL. IF ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WAS TO BE JUSTIFIED, THE SAME WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THESE EXP ENSES BY POINTING OUT ANY EXPENSE, WHICH ARE NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND R EPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO BEFORE ITA NO. 5288/ DEL/ 2013 5 HIM , HENCE, N O INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 17 / 4 /20 1 5 . SD/ - SD/ - [ S.V. MEHROTRA ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 17 / 4 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 5288/ DEL/ 2013 6