, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.189/AHD/2013 - AY 1999-2000 ( IN #./ IN I.T.A. NO.2066/AHD/2010) ( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) M/S.PRIME CERAMICS PVT.LTD. AT & POST GAVASAD PADRA JAMBUSAR ROAD PADRA, BARODA / VS. THE ITO WARD-4(3) BARODA !* #./+, #./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCP 3755 D ( APPLICANT ) .. ( -.*/ / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. PANDEY, DR $'0 1 & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 06/06/2014 23) 1 & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/06/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED ON 21 /10/2013, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORD ER (ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD) PASSED IN ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010 FOR ASST. YEAR 1999-2000, DATED 04/10/2013. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010 PERTAINING TO ASST.YEAR 1999-2000 WAS TAKEN UP MA NO.189/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010) M/SD.PRIME CERAMICS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 1999-2000 - 2 - TOGETHER FOR HEARING WITH ITA NO.2067/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2000-01 (IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE) AND DISPOSED OF BY A CONSOLIDA TED ORDER DATED 04/10/2013 BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO .2067/AHD/2010 WERE REPRODUCED, BUT DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010 WERE NOT REPRODUCED IN THE TRI BUNAL ORDER DATED 04/10/2013. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DISPOSED OF THE ITA NOS.2066/AHD/2010 & 2067/AHD/2010 FOR AYS 1999-2000 & 2000-01 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ORDER DATED 04/10/2013. IT WAS O BSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE GROUNDS FOR BOTH THE YEARS WERE S IMILAR. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE GROU NDS TAKEN IN ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010 FOR AY 1999-2000 ARE NOT SIMILAR. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD RESTO RED BOTH THESE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS N OT DECIDING THE ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010 AS THE GROUNDS OF THIS APPEAL WERE NOT REPRODUCED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND PER USING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE HEREBY MODIFY OUR ORDER DAT ED 04/10/2013 AND REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010, HEREUNDER:- MA NO.189/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010) M/SD.PRIME CERAMICS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 1999-2000 - 3 - GROUNDS OF APPEAL (ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010 FOR AY 1999 -2000 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143 (3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE AO, IGNORING THE FACT THAT ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON ISSUES UNCONNECTED WITH THE ISSUE MENTIONED IN THE REASON RECORDED FOR REOPENING. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,35,000/- MADE BY AO AS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY U./S.68 OF THE ACT. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATED EVIDENCES AN D SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DEL ETED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,80,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.9,68,500/- MADE BY AO IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LO AN U/S.68 OF THE ACT. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE IDENTITY, CONFIRMATION AND CAPACITY O F THE CREDITOR WERE PROVED BY THE APPELLANT. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO H AVE ACCEPTED THE LOAN AS GENUINE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE B Y AO U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,44,827/- ON ACC OUNT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF A.Y. 2002-03. APPELLANT BOOKED DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDI TURE OF RS.7,24,135/- AND CLAIMED 1/5 TH OF IT BEING RS.1,44,827/- AS DEDUCTIBLE U/S.35D. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAV E FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE THE AO. 4. INITIATION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B A ND 234C OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. MA NO.189/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010) M/SD.PRIME CERAMICS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 1999-2000 - 4 - 5. INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4.1. THE LD.CIT(A) IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ITA NO.2066/AHD/2010 FOR AY 1999-2000 AS DIRECTED BY OU R ORDER DATED 04/10/2013 PASSED IN ITA NOS.2066 & 2067/AHD/2010 F OR AYS 1999- 2000 & 2000-01 RESPECTIVELY. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF IN THE TERMS AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ($ %&) ! ! ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/ 06 /2014 7.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 1 -&8 98)& 4 1 -&8 98)& 4 1 -&8 98)& 4 1 -&8 98)&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. */ / THE APPLICANT. 2. -.*/ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $: / CONCERNED CIT. 4. $:() / THE CIT(A)-III, BARODA 5. 8'%; -& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;( <0 / GUARD FILE. 4$ 4$ 4$ 4$ / BY ORDER, .8& -& //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / #+ #+ #+ #+ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD