Pashankar Auto India Pvt Ltd, Pune V. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

ITA 954/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6959 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHREE G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.954 & 955/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Pashankar Auto India Pvt. Ltd., S. No. 45/1, Dehu Road, Katraj By-pass, Baner, Pune – 411015 PAN : AAECP3979Q Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 15-05-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29-05-2024 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders dated 30-05-2018 and 17-10-2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Since the common issues are involved, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. There is delay in filing the appeals in both the AYs. Before us, the Ld. AR filed an affidavit sworn by the Director of the assessee company citing therein the reasons for delayed filing of the appeals. We have considered the reasons stated therein and having been satisfied, we hereby condone the delay in both the AYs. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- AY 2013-14 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee could receive hard copy of the appellate order on only 17/07/2023 for the reasons 2 ITA Nos.954 & 955/PUN/2023, A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 beyond its control. An affidavit explaining the circumstances is enclosed. 2. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-3, Pune, is not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis delay of only 14 days in filing the appeal. The appeal before CIT(A) be restored by setting aside his order dt. 31/05/2018. 3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-3, Pune, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.48,28,555/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 out of interest paid. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-3, Pune, is not justified in confirming an ad hoc disallowance of Rs.10,57,106/- u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Without prejudice to Ground No. 4 above, and on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the ad hoc disallowance be restricted to a reasonable amount. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal” AY 2014-15 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee could receive hard copy of the appellate order on only 17/07/2023 for the reasons beyond its control. An affidavit explaining the circumstances is enclosed. 2. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the notice of demand issued u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before assessment is bad in law. Such demand is not enforceable. 3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Assessing Officer be directed not to issue the fresh notice of demand u/s. 156 in consequence of appeal effect as the original notice of demand is bad in law. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-3, Pune, is not justified in confirming an ad hoc disallowance of Rs.55,735/- u/s. 37(1). 5. Without prejudice to Ground No. 4 above, and on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the ad hoc disallowance be restricted to a reasonable amount. 3 ITA Nos.954 & 955/PUN/2023, A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 6. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-3, Pune, is not justified in confirming disallowance of depreciation of Rs.51,73,882/-. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal” 4. The assessee has not pressed Ground no. 4 and 5 raised in AY 2013- 14 as the disallowance has been accepted by the assessee during assessment. In AY 2014-15 Ground no. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not pressed by the assessee and hence these grounds are not adjudicated. 5. The Ld. AR submitted at the outset that the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal before him pertaining to AY 2013-14 It has also been submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the appeal of assessee on merits. 5.1 As regards A.Y. 2014-15, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the disallowances made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) for the reasons that they are not fully supported by the vouchers/bills. It is contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did produce all the details called for, which had been verified by the Ld. AO on test check basis. The Ld. AR, therefore, submitted that the disallowances are not justified. 6. The Ld. DR supported the order(s) of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the submission of the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material in the records. The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal before him pertaining to AY 2013-14 though the assessee had pleaded the existence of sufficient cause for the said delay which was due to medical condition of the authorized representative(s) of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay merely for want of medical certificate. The Ld. CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee has stated that the authorized representative(s) were out of station for bank branch audits which is contradictory to the other submission of illness of the authorized representatives(s). We, however, observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has not sought any clarification from the assessee in this regard during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) did not also take cognizance of the affidavit filed by the assessee before him 4 ITA Nos.954 & 955/PUN/2023, A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 narrating all the facts in support of its claim. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be judicially expedient if the appeals are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside both the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore them to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for AY 2013-14 and decide both the appeals afresh on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. We order accordingly. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 th May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. Padmahshali) (Astha Chandra) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 29 th May, 2024. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune