U.P.Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited , Lucknow V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 573/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 57323714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S C AGARWAL
• Keywords: 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 NO.573/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 U.P. SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAL NIGAM LIMITED, TC46 V VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU1932C VS. DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. C. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. K. RAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 12/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 24/09/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,81,513/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2. THAT THE LIABILITY FOR THE EXPENSES AGGREGATING RS.2,81,513/ - WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND AROSE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AN D IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT 'HOW IT COULD BE 2 SAID THAT THE LIABILITY AROSE IN THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN THE WORK CONCERN OR PURCHASES CONCERN WERE DONE/COMPLETED IN THE EARL IER YEARS.' 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT AND CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.89,126/ - ON THE PLEA THAT 'NEITHER HAVE ANY DETAILS BEEN SUBMITTED NOT (NOR) HAS ANYTHING BEEN ADVOCATED TO CLAIM ALLOWABILITY THEREOF OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION', IN AS MUCH AS THE DETAILS AND VOUCHERS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION ONLY. 4. THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY REASON T O DISALLOW ANY INDIVIDUAL CLAIM S ITEM WISE RENDERING THE ORDER INVALID. 5. THAT THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED: (7)THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN NOT GIVING FULL CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES PAID INCLUDING TDS. (8)THAT THE WORKING MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES PAID RS.11,26,655/ - IS NOT CORRECT. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN TAKING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS . 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES ALTHOUGH RELATED TO EARLIER YEARS HAVE CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE PRESENT YEAR. REGARDING THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THI S CONTENTION THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES A & B OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CONCERNED VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS NOT A CRITERIA TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE CRYSTALLIZED IN THE PRESENT YEAR. AS PER PAGE A & B OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY STATED THE HEAD OF ACCOUNT, AMOUNT, THE YEAR TO WHICH THE EXPENSES RELATE, VOUCHER NUMBER OF THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE DETAILS OF THE PAYEE TO WHOM THE AMOUNT W AS PAID. THERE IS NO MENTION AS TO HOW IT CAN BE CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING CRYSTALLIZATION OF EXPENSES IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 ARE REJECTED. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE GROUND NO. 7 & 8 BUT THES E GROUNDS WERE NOT DECIDED BY HIM. WE ALSO FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED GROUND NO. 7 & 8 BECAUSE HE HAS STATED IN PARA NO. 6 OF HIS ORDER THAT GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 6 TO 8 ARE ROUTINE AND GENERAL. BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, GROUND NO. 7 & 8 RAISED B EFORE CIT (A) CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ROUTINE AND GENERAL BECAUSE AS PER THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUESTING FULL CREDIT OF THE AMOUNTS OF TAX PAID INCLUDING TDS. WE, THEREFORE, FEEL IT PROPER THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD GO TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH D ECISION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF 4 CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE GROUND NO. 7 & 8 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES . ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 5 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (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