Craftpac Containers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5637/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 563720114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENU JAIN GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P P GAMBHIR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA ITA NO. 5637/DEL/10 ASSTT. YR: 2006-07 CRAFTPAC CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT CIR. 3(1) , M-259, GREATER KAILASH-II, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-110048. PAN/GIR NO. AAACC0305M (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.P. GAMBHIR CA RESPONDENT BY : MS. RENU JAIN GUPTA SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DA TED 8-9-2010 RELATING TO A.Y. 2006-07. FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROU ND ARE UNDER: I. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50, 000/- PAID TOWARDS FILING FEE TO ROC. II. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,49,170/- INCURRED ON MOULDS & DIES USED FOR MANUFACTURING OF GOODS. 2. APROPOS FIRST GROUND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE CONTENDS THAT THE FILING FEE BEING REVENUE IN NATURE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 3. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDS THAT THE ROC FILING FEE WAS INCURRED FOR INCREASING AUTHORIZED CAPITAL, THEREF ORE, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAME, FOLLOWING HONBLE SUPREME COUR T JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ITA 5637/DEL/10 CRAFTPAC CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. 2 OF BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 225 ITR 798 AND C IT VS. KODAK INDIA LTD. 229 ITR 445. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE FILING FEE WAS PAID TO REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FOR INCREASING AUTHORIZED CAPITAL. THE SAME BEING ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DISALLOWING THIS CLAIM. THIS GROUND OF AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. APROPOS SECOND GROUND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS APPLIED FOR FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH COULD NOT BE F URNISHED BEFORE THE AO. 6. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE MAN UFACTURE OF PLASTIC CONTAINERS INVOLVING THE PURCHASE OF MOULDS AND DIE S. THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTS DEPENDS UPON THE QUALITY OF MOULDS USED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, PURCHASES INCLUDE TWO TYPES OF MOULDS ONE OF GOOD QUALITY AND CONTINUE FOR SOME YEARS WHICH ARE CAPIT ALIZED AS PLANT & MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED THEREON; THE OTHER TYPE OF MOULDS ARE THOSE WHICH ARE CONSUMED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF I.E. WHICH DO NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER UTILITY. THEY ARE DEBITED TO P&L A/C BE ING RENEWABLE ITEMS. 6.1. THE SAME ISSUE AROSE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ALS O AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE ITAT WHICH WAS ADMITT ED AND THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. 6.2. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, AO HAS CON FIRMED THE ADDITION AND THE APPEAL THEREON IS LYING BEFORE THE CIT(A) F OR A.Y. 2005-06. 6.3. IT IS PLEADED THAT FOLLOWING EARLIER ORDER, TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED. 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSES THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EMPLOYE D THE PRACTICE OF ITA 5637/DEL/10 CRAFTPAC CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. 3 CAPITALIZING OF THE MOULDS AS A BLOCK OF ASSET, CL AIMING DEPRECIATION THEREON. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE RELIED ON. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SIMILAR FACTS ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE WAS ADMITTED AND ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR A.Y. 2005-06. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE AO HAS CONF IRMED THE ADDITION AND THE APPEAL IS NOW PENDING WITH THE CIT(A). WE A RE INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS ON THE SAME BASIS ITAT IN PR ECEDING YEAR HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME AND RESTORED IT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER TO AO WILL NOT BE OF MUCH USE AS THE FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. CIT(A) IS SEIZED WITH THE MATTER FOR A.Y. 2005-06. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE NOW TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ALONG WITH K EEPING IN VIEW HIS ORDER IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06. WE ORDER ACCOR DINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29-02-2012. SD/- SD/- ( A.N. PAHUJA) ( R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:29-02-2012. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITA 5637/DEL/10 CRAFTPAC CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. 4