VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. I.T.O. - 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 846/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0761 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR KESHRI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 846/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ) VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD. B-204, LEELA STERLING, 2 ND FLOOR, OFF FILM CITY ROAD, GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI-400063. PAN: AABCV7858F VS. ITO - 13(3)(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 847/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ) VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD. B-204, LEELA STERLING, 2 ND FLOOR, OFF FILM CITY ROAD, GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI-400063. PAN: AABCV7858F VS. ITO - 13(3)(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY KUMAR KESHRI (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 04.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 04.10.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THESE TWO APPEAL BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 253 OF I NCOME-TAX ACT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI DATED 27.09.2017 AND DATED 03.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 & ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2014- 15 RESPECTIVELY. IN BOTH THE APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT VARIATION OF FIGURES, THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE CLUBBED, AND ARE DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER. IN APPE AL FOR ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 846 & 847 MUM 2018-VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD. 2 YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 846/MUM/2018 THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 13(3)(3) AND CIT (21) ERRED I N DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CARS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,37, 639/-. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 13(3)(3) AND CIT (21) ERRED I N DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CARS EXPENSES OF RS. 1,12,523 /- CONSIDERING AS PERSONAL. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 13(3)(3) AND CIT (21) ERRED I N DISALLOWING 50% OF RS. 1,45,560/- OUT OF VARIOUS SEVEN TYPES OF EXPENS ES ON AD-HOC BASIS. 2. IN ITA NO. 847/MUM/2018, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 13(3)(3) AND CIT (21) ERRED I N DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CARS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,76, 878/-. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 13(3)(3) AND CIT (21) ERRED I N DISALLOWING OTHER AND MOTOR CARS EXPENSES OF RS. 1,21,520/- CONSIDERI NG AS PERSONAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF COURIER SERVICES. THE ASSESS EE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 28.09.2013 DE CLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 9,14,030/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 15.02.2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE P ASSING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CARS OF RS. 2,37,639/-. , EXPENSES ON MOTOR CARS OF RS. 1,12,523/- HOLDING IT AS PERSONAL AND DISALLOWED 25% OF RS. 5,82,243/- OUT OF VARIOUS EX PENSES ON AD-HOC BASIS . ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON DEPRICIATION OF VEHICLE AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES WAS CONFIRMED, HOWEVER, OUT OF OTHER DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN 50% RELIEF. ITA NO. 846 & 847 MUM 2018-VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD. 3 THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH RPAD IS RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARK OF POSTAL AUTHORITIES LEFT. THEREFORE, WE LEFT NO OPTION EXCEPT TO HEAR THE LD. DR FOR THE RE VENUE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT BOTH THE APPEALS ARE FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS WELL AS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. THE APPEAL FOR AY 2013-14 IS DELAY OF 28 DAYS AND THE APPEAL F OR AY 2014-15 IS ALSO TIME BARRED. IN ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF COND ONATION OF DELAY THE APPEALS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR FO R THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN APPEAL FO R AY 2013-14, THE LD CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 27.09.2017. AS PER COLUM 9 OF APPEAL FORM THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ON 13/11/2017, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO FILE THE APPEAL ON OR BEFO RE 12.01.2018, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 09.02.2018, THUS, THERE IS DELAY OF 28 DAYS. FURTHER IN APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15, THE LD CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 03.10.2017. AS PER COLUM 9 OF APPEAL FORM THE ASSES SEE RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 12/12/2017, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTI TLED TO FILE THE APPEAL ITA NO. 846 & 847 MUM 2018-VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD. 4 ON OR BEFORE 11.02.2018, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 09 .02.2018, THUS, PRIMA FACIA THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL. PERU SAL OF THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY IN APPEAL FOR AY 2013-14. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN PROPER MANNER; HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIE W THE PRINCIPAL ON NATURAL JUSTICE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL F OR AY 2013-14 IS CONDONED. 5. ON MERIT THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATED HIS CLAIMS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES NOR THEY HAVE CAME FORWARD TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, THEREFORE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR FO R THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE OWNERSH IP OF THE VEHICLE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR WHICH THE DEPRICIA TION WAS CLAIMED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEP RICIATION. SIMILARLY FOR OTHER CLAIM THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTIONS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISA LLOWED THE MOTOR CAR AND THE EXPENSES OF OTHER. THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED 50 % RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON OTHER EXPENSES AFTER CONSIDERING THE CO NTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY ITA NO. 846 & 847 MUM 2018-VPS COURIERS PVT. LTD. 5 EVIDENCES NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO SUBSTANTIA TE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO IN TERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A), WHICH WE AFFIRM. IN THE RESULT THE GROUND NO. 1TO 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. ITA 847/MUM/2018 FOR AY 2014-15 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT VARIATION OF FIGURE AS RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1& 2 IN APPEAL FOR EARLIER Y EAR. CONSIDERING OUR DECISION IN APPEAL FOR EARLIER YEAR ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS THE APPEAL FOR THIS YEAR IS ALSO DISMISSED WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS. IN THE RESULT THE GROUND NO. 1&2 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE AYS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2018. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 04.10.2018 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI