M/s Aster Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Chandigarh V. The Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA 695/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6496 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , '( BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 695/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S ASTER DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LIMIED., #760, SECTOR 43-A, CHANDIGARH THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-V, CHANDIGARH ./ PAN NO: AABCA4202A / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH ' ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA, SR.DR # $ %/ DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2019 &'() %/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2019 ')/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2016 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2 CHANDIGARH [HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS CIT(A)] RELATING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW IN AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAK ING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1,3 7,83,173/- AS AGAINST RS. 1,04,00,000/- TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,83,173/- BEING THE REVENUE EXPEND ITURE CLAIMED AND AT THE SAME TIME ADDING THE SAME TOWARDS THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION REC EIVED WHICH TANTAMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION UPHELD IS ARBITRA RY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,30,881/- DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. ITA-695/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE RELATING TO THE COMPUTAT ION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE Y EAR SOLD CERTAIN PLANT AND MACHINERY AND CLAIMED CERTAIN EXP ENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE AND AFTER DEDUCTING R S. 33.83 LACS, OFFERED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS AO) DENIED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AND INCLUDE D THE SAME INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAIL S OF EXPENDITURE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 04.02.2016 PLACED AT PAGE 51 OF TH E PAPER BOOK WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT EACH A ND EVERY DETAIL REGARDING TRANSACTION INCLUDING THE EXPENDIT URE INCURRED WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS, JUST CONFIRMED THE O RDER OF THE AO. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NON-SPEAKING OR DER ON THIS ISSUE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIM WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE EXAMINE THE DETAILS, EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. GROUND NO. 3 5. IN GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE CONFI RMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 6,30,881/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLO WANCE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CA RRY OUT ANY ITA-695/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 3 MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAD CAR RIED OUT JOB WORK AND THAT THE UNIT WAS OPERATED UPON. HOWE VER, THE CIT(A) DID NOT GIVE ANY SPECIFIC FINDING ON THE ABO VE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND DETAILS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER GROUND RAISED OR PRESSED. 6. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVE ABOVE, THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON COMPLETION OF HEARING ON 19 TH FEBRUARY,2019. SD/- SD/- ( # $ % &' ) ( ) ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG ) '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER + / JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM *'+ ,- .-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. * * # // CIT 4. * * # / ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. -23 4, * % *4, 67839/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 38 :$/ GUARD FILE *'+ # / BY ORDER ; ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR