Income Tax Officer, Kanpur V. M/s Hari Om Steels Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 717/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2032 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL ANAND
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.717/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 05 ITO, WARD 6 (1), KANPUR VS. M/S HARI OM STEELS (P) LTD., 46/146, HALSEY ROAD KANPUR 208001. PAN:AAACH7413H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI ANIL ANAND, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SMT. JYOTI VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 31/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 1 /08/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) II KANPUR DATED 29.07.2013 FOR A.Y. 2004 05. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2006 PASSED BY THE AO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IGNORING THE FACT DURING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTION REG ARDING JURISDICTION OF THE AO AND REPLIED VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNUL LING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IGNORING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 124 OF 2 THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF AN ASSESSMENT. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PLACING RELI ANCE ON CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.6/2007 AS THIS INSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED ON 18.07.2007, WHEREAS ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 19.12.2006 AND AO HAD THUS NOT VIOLATED ANY CBDT INSTRUCTION. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN HOLDING THAT ILLNESS OF AN ACCOUNTANT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING EXPLANATION/ EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHOSE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND WHICH IS MANAGED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COULD NOT BE TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON AN ACCOUNTANT. 6. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), KANPU R BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND E ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 2.1 IN ADDITION TO THIS, FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ALSO RAISED BY THE REVENUE: - 1. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( A) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN TAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.52,60,000/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S RITU OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. AND M/S IMPERIAL SALES PVT. LTD. WERE NEVER SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AND IN ABSENCE OF VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE'S VERSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 2. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GO THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS / DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3 . FIRST, WE DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 3 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS ABOUT REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS IS THE OBJECTION OF THE A.O. THAT FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY GOT MONEY TO REPAY THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN VIEW OF HEAVY ACCUMULATED LOSSES. IN THIS REGARD, CLEAR FINDING I S GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE OUT OF RECOVERIES FROM DEBTORS AND INTERNAL ACCRUALS. IT IS NOTED BY HIM THAT THE SOURCES OF FUNDS OF RS. 102.54 LACS INCLUDED DECREASE IN SUNDRY DEBTORS RS. 23.87 LACS, DECREASE IN LOANS & ADVANCES RS. 52.96 LACS, DECREASE IN CASH & BANK BALANCES RS. 13.07 LACS AND DEPRECIATION OF RS. 12.54 LACS. THE UTILIZATION OF FUNDS IS NOT MORE THAN THIS AMOUNT AND IT INCLUDES REPAYMENT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RS. 52.60 LACS. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD N OT SHOW ANY MISTAKE IN THIS FINDING OF CIT (A). HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 5. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ON MERIT OF ADDITIO N, TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS RAISED AS PER MAIN GROUNDS HAS BECOME OF ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY AND THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE ME NTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMB ER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 /08/2015 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