M/s. Titec Finance Limited , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 7(2), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 917/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0872 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DILIP KUMAR MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.917/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 M/S TITEC FINANCE LTD. 604, BLOCK-O 1 ST FLOOR, 12, KRISHNA CHANDRA DEY SARNI, NEW ALIPORE, KOLAKTA-53 [ PAN NO.AACCT 6531 E ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.M.SURANA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI DILIP KUMAR MITRA, ADDL-CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 19-09-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05-10-2018 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 , ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 22.04.2014 PASSED IN CASE NO.1843/CIT(A)-3/CIR.7(2)/KOL/14-15 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL DOES NOT PRESS FOR ASSESSEES RE NTAL EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE OF 1,35,00/- THIS SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS DISMISSED AS N OT PRESSED. 3. THE ASSESSEES NEXT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGE S THE CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION DISALLOWANCE COMMISSION EX PENSES OF 5,24,958/- PAID TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF TDS DEDUCTION, BANKING CHANNEL DETAILS ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF LOWER PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE IMPU GNED DISALLOWANCE MAINLY FOR ITA NO.917/KOL/2018 A.Y. 201 1-12 M/S TITEC FINANCE LTD VS. ITO WD-7(2) KOL. PAGE 2 THE REASON THAT SAME COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BY OBTAI NING PAYEESS STATEMENT. I FIND NO REASON TO AGREE WITH THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AS I T HAS COME ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID SIMILAR COMMISSION AS AN NBFC IN PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. LEARNED DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THIS CRUCIAL FACT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. I A CCEPT THE ASSESSEES INSTANT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND ACCORDINGLY. 4. NEXT COMES BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION DI SALLOWING ASSESSEES PRELIMINARY EXPENSES OF 44,284/- BY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE CAPITAL IN NATUR E. I FIND THAT IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE SINCE IT REPRESENTS AMORTIZATION OF THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES U/S 35D OF THE ACT. THE IM PUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED ACCORDINGLY. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05/10/2018 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE R KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 05/10/2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S TITEC FINACNE LTD. 604, BLOCK O 1 ST FLOOR, 12, KRISHNA CHA NDRA DEY SARANI, NEW ALIPORE, KOLKATA-53 2. /RESPONDENT-INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2) KOLKATA 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO ',