EMPRESS TIN FACTORY P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 568/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6834 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 568 /MUM/20 15 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 ) M/S. EMPRESS TIN FACTORY PVT. LTD. 2, PRABHAT NAGAR S.V. ROAD, JOGESHWARI WEST, MUMBAI - 400102 . PAN : AAACE0969P V S . ITO 8(1)(3) MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY MS. DINKLE HARIYA DEPARTMENT BY S HRI V. JUSTIN DATE OF HEARING 7 . 0 6 . 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 7 . 0 6 . 201 8 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 20 - 10 - 2014 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 16, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPED THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE BUSINESS EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINES S ACTIVITIES. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD MADE IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE IN AY 2008 - 09 ALSO AND THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15 - 02 - 2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.322/MUM/2012, HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATIO N CLAIMED, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. M/S. EMPRESS TIN FACTORY PVT. LTD . 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD A.R WAS ASKED TO SHOW AS TO WHETHER THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REVIVED SUBSEQUENTLY OR NOT. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REVIVED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME SHE FILED COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2012 - 13. 4. THE LD D.R SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 5. WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDER ED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2008 - 09, REFERRED SUPRA, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPED THE BUSINE SS PERMANENTLY. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2012 - 13 WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REVIVED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, MEANING THEREBY, THERE WAS TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A Y 2008 - 09, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES THAT ARE BEING CONTESTED BEFORE US. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN AY 2008 - 09 AND ALL OW THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 . 6 .201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - (PAWAN SINGH ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 7 / 6 / 20 1 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR P RIVATE S ECRETARY PS ITAT, MUMBAI