Panama Petrochem Ltd., Bharuch V. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

MA 390/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4392 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S CHAUDHURY SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: Revision of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES A, AHM EDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, J.M.& SH RI D.C.AGRAWAL , A.M, M.A.NO.390/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT ITA NO.1347/AHD/2006 ASST.YEAR: 2001-02 PANAMA PETROCHEM LTD. PLOT NO.3303, GIDC ESTATE, ANKLESHWAR PAN NO.AABCP1856D VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL R SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.S. CHAUDHURY, SR-DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, J.M. BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE A SSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR AMENDING THE ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS THE ACT) OF RS.1.50 LAKH BEING FACTORY RENT AND RS.1.20 LAKHS BEING TRANSPOR TATION CHARGES PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1347/AHD/2006 DATED 09-10-2009. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE U S THAT COMPLETE PARTICULARS, INFORMATION AND PROOF IN SUPPORT OF CL AIM WAS MADE TO THE EFFECT THAT PAYMENT MADE TO THIS SISTER CONCERN WAS REASONABLE AND FAIR FOR BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS COMMENSURATE WITH BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. HE STATED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE APPLICABILITY U/S.40A(2)(B) AND THE ONUS IS ON 2 THE REVENUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR-DR, SHRI D. S. CHAUDHARY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND FRO M THE CASE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE EVEN NOW BEFORE US COULD NOT PRODUCE WHAT WAS THE REASONABLENESS IN PAYMENT OF RENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO ASSOCI ATE CONCERNS / SISTER CONCERN. WHEN ENQUIRY WAS MADE TO THE EFFECT, THAT, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ANY DETAIL OF RENT PAID BY TENANTS OTHER FACTORY OF SAM E LOCALITY, AND THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMPARATIVE WITH OTHER TRANSPORTERS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ANSWERED IN NEGATIVE AND HE COULD NOT SHOW IN THE P APER BOOK ANYTHING. FROM THE ASSESSEES MA, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS REVISION OF ORDER, FOR WHICH WE HAVE NO POWER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS MA OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES MA IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/02/2010 . SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AHMEDABAD. DATE : 05 /02/2010 DKP* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DR / AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD