ACIT, CHENNAI V. Vivek Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 926/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 92621714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M C SRIKANTH
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.926/MDS/2014 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S VIVEK LTD., 68, LUZ CHURCH ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN : AAACV 1186 V (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.C. SRIKANTH, CA 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 21.04.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.05.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, CHENN AI, DATED 17.12.2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2 I.T.A. NO. 926/MDS/14 2. SHRI N. MADHAVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IS WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION ON TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED AT 100% DEPRECIATION, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER A LLOWED ONLY 10%. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN FACT, IN THE EA RLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW COMING TO THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE AD DITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.1 751 TO 1754/MDS/2005. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE FACTS. HE SIMPLY DELETED BY REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TR IBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE FACTS, WHICH ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION, HAS TO BE REFERRED I N THE ORDER AND HAS TO BE MADE CLEAR HOW THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS APPL ICABLE. WITHOUT DOING SO, MERELY REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL AND DELETING THE ADDITION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. SIMILARLY, IN RE SPECT OF OTHER ADDITIONS WITH REGARD TO POOJA EXPENSES, VEHICLE MA INTENANCE EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION, GOODWILL HAVE ALSO BEEN DEL ETED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) BY MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO TH E LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDIT IONS. 3 I.T.A. NO. 926/MDS/14 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI M.C. SRIKANTH, THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) H AS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. OF COURSE, THERE IS NO MUC H OF DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) THAT HE HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR DELETIN G THE ADDITIONS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CIT(A PPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL SINCE THIS TRIB UNAL IS ABOVE THE CIT(APPEALS) IN HIERARCHY. HOWEVER, THE FACTS, THE ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION AND HOW THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS APPLICABLE TO SUCH FACTS HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED IN APPELLATE ORDER. THE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS TO BE REFLECTED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL AN D SIMPLY DELETING THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IS NOT JUSTIFI ED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) IS BOUND TO DISCUSS THE FACTS AND RECORD REASON FOR THE CONCLUSION REAC HED THEREIN. OF COURSE, THE CIT(APPEALS) MAY TAKE A DECISION BY REL YING ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, THERE SHOULD BE DI SCUSSION. SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH DISCUSSION AS POINTED OUT BY THE L D. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT( APPEALS) HAS TO 4 I.T.A. NO. 926/MDS/14 RECONSIDER THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND ENTIRE ISSUES REMITTED BACK TO HIS FILE. THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER, PASS A SPEAKING ORDER REFERRING TO THE FACTS AND DISCUSSING THE REASON FO R APPLYING THE PRESENT LAW IN THE SUBJECT INCLUDING THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST OF MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 1 ST MAY, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI-34 4. 1 92 /CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI-34 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.