Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1)(2), Bangalore V. M/s. Vidya Herbs Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 925/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7412 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU JT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.925/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. VIDYA HERBS PVT. LTD., NO.30, 33 RD MAIN, 16 TH CROSS, 6 TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 078. PAN: AABCV 9009Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. BIJU, JT. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2017 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 30.01.2017 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-7, BENGALURU FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO.925/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT FORWARDING THE S AME TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF GEN UINENESS AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 46A(3) OF THE I. T. RULES'? 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND TH AT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, DESPITE DUE SERV ICE OF NOTICE (AD CARD PLACED ON RECORD). WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE AFTER PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING T HE LD. DR. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT O F HERBAL EXTRACT. DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE MADE ADDITIO N TO FIXED ASSETS FOR BOILER, HEAT EXCHANGE EXTRACTORS, GAS LINE REACTORS , SPRAY DRIERS, THIN FILM EVAPORATORS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 8 0% OF THE HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILERS. THE AGGREGATE ADDITION OF HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILERS WAS RS.85,80,750 OUT OF WHICH RS.28,28,100 WAS ADDED IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE ITA NO.925/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 YEAR AND THE BALANCE OF RS.57,52,650 WAS ADDED IN T HE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, THESE BOILERS ARE ENERGY SAVING DEVICES AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE AT HIGHER RAT E OF DEPRECIATION I.E., @ 80%. HOWEVER, THE AO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ONLY AT 15%. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE CIT(APPEA LS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSU ED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES, BOILERS, INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & HEALTH, GOV T. OF KARNATAKA. 5. THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US PLEADIN G THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDEN T-ASSESSEE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM O F CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES, BOILERS, INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & HEALTH, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO, THUS VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. THUS, TH E LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE C IT(APPEALS) TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) GRANTED THE R ELIEF TO THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE PROVISIONS OF RU LE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. THEREFORE, IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS, WE REM AND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRES H, AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF REBUTTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FI LED BEFORE HIM TO THE ITA NO.925/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.