The ACIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Urmin Products Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 939/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1795 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: A L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Retrospective amendment; Tax effect; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA YADAVJM, AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM ./ITA.NO.939/AHD/2012 ALONG WITH CO NO.108/AHD/2012 ( / ASSTT YEAR : 2008-09) ACIT, CIR-8, AHMEDABAD. VS. M/S URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 9, SATYAWADI SOCIETY, OPP. VASANT HIGH SCHOOL, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD. PAN AAACU 4489Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY: MR. DINESH SINGH, SR.DR / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A. L. THAKKAR, AR / DATE OF HEARING 8/04/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8/04/2016 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) XIV, DA TED 10/02/2012 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER :- 1) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAIS)-XIV, AH MEDABAD ERRED IN SAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,0 00/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSIN G STOCK OF PERFORMANCE. ITA.NO.939 & CO 108/AHD/2012 - 2 2). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI V, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INSURANCE EXPENSES ON NEW VEHICL ES AFTER TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X IV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,01 ,190/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.41(1)OF THE ACT. 4). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X IV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 0,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATING TO TRADE MARK REGISTRATION. 5). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6). IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A S UNDER :- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,14,121/- FOR THE ALLEGED EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT ON ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS TREATING THE SAME AS ELECTRIC FITTINGS HENCE THE SAME DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE HEAD PLANT & MACHINERY. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,635/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 R. W. RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR T HE EXPENSES OF RS.21,550/- BEING 1/5 TH OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.1,07,750/- CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S.35D OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.2,95,005/- BEING 50% OF THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES ONLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS TREATING THE SAME AS INCURRED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ITA.NO.939 & CO 108/AHD/2012 - 3 RS.3,00,000/- OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT, ONLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS TREATING THE SAME AS INCURRED FOR PERSONAL AND NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. 6. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 4. THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE WAS PRESENTED ON 30/04201 2. ON 10.12.2015 THE CBDT HAS ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS BEARING NO. 21/2015 PROHIBITING ITS SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES FROM FILING OF THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS LESS THAN RS.10 L AKHS. THE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT , MEANING THEREBY, THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE ON PENDING APPEAL S ALSO. THE TAX EFFECT ON DELETION OF THIS TOTAL ADDITION WOULD BE LESS TH AN RS.10 LAKHS. THE PRESENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED BEING TREAT ED TO BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. THE CASE DOES NOT F ALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. IT IS F URTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE, WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL, SUCH FACTORS WERE NOT CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, IN CASE, ON RE-VERIFICATION AT THE END O F THE AO, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE OR IT FALLS WITH IN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTION, THEN THE DEPARTMENT WI LL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER. SU CH APPLICATION SHOULD BE ITA.NO.939 & CO 108/AHD/2012 - 4 FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. AS THE APPEAL ITSELF IS HELD TO BE NON-MAINTAINA BLE, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE CROSS OBJECTION CEASES TO HOLD GO OD IN LAW. THE CROSS OBJECTION, THEREFORE, IS ALSO DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8/04/2016 AT AH MEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 8/04/2016 ! '!/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. &$% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. '(( ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. !-. , ,012 /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. .3 45 / GUARD FILE. ) ' / BY ORDER, ' (0 (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA.NO.939 & CO 108/AHD/2012 - 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. : 8/ 4/2016. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 8/4/2016 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FO R PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8 /04/16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATUR E ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER