ACIT, Coimbatore V. M/s. Lakshmigraha Enterprises, Coimbatore

MA 77/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8564 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAJI P JACOB IRS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO.77(MDS)/2012 IN ITA NO.847(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE III, COIMBATORE. VS. M/S.LAKSHMIGRAHA ENTERPRISES, 29, RACE COURSE, OPP.MASONIC HOSPITAL, COIMBATORE-641018. PAN AAAFL4883C. (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, IRS, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH JULY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 TH JULY, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THIS IS A RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL PASSED ON 6-5-2011 IN ITA NO.847(MDS)/2010. THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR IS 2006-07. - - MP 77 OF 2012 2 2. THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS RELATING TO THE ADMISSIBILI TY OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TOWARDS MARKET SURVEY EXPENSES. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE, FOUND TH AT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEY WER E INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED AND THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED. 3. NOW, IN THE PETITION FILED BEFORE US, THE REVEN UE CONTENDS THAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE FACT THAT 63 NEW CUSTOMERS WERE INTRODUCED WHILE 55 CUSTOMERS WERE D ROPPED REMAINS UNDISPUTED, IS ARRIVED AT ON THE BASIS OF U NVERIFIED FACTS. 4. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THOSE ASPECTS HAVE NO T BEEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS BETTER TO EXTRACT THE RELEV ANT PARAGRAPHS FROM THE PETITION AS UNDER: HOWEVER THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER - - MP 77 OF 2012 3 AND ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, B BENCH, CHENNAI. I. THE CLAIM THAT 63 NEW CUSTOMERS WERE ADDED AND 55 OLD CUSTOMERS WERE DROPPED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO CROSS- VERIFICATION TO ASCERTAIN THE EFFECT OF THE ALLEGED SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE FEE FOR MARKET SURVEY. II. NEITHER, THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE(S), NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS SO REQUIRED, TO SHOW THAT THE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE FEE FOR MARKET SURVEY HAD THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF THE ASSESSEES CUSTOMERS. III. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE FEE FOR MARKET SURVEY IS NOT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NOR, SO REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. - - MP 77 OF 2012 4 IV. ABOVE ALL, WHETHER, THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE SAID MARKET SURVEY HAVING HAD BEEN LAID-OUT WHOLLY, EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS, HA S NOT BEEN ASCERTAINED WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED. IT IS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE REVENUE PRAYS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A PPEALS) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. 5. NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPE ARED FOR THE REVENUE. 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS AND THE AVERMEN TS OF THE REVENUE MADE IN THE RECTIFICATION PETITION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY REALLY REQUIRES A REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MISTAKE AS S UCH POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FINDINGS REGARDING T HE NUMBER OF NEW CUSTOMERS AND DESERTED CUSTOMERS ARE ONLY IN TH E NATURE OF INCIDENTS POINTED OUT BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH SUPPOR T THE - - MP 77 OF 2012 5 ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MARKET SURVEY EXP ENSES HAVE YIELDED POSITIVE RESULTS. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT GOI NG INTO THE MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY OF THOSE ASPECTS. 7. THE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS WITHOUT AN Y MERIT. IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 13 TH OF JULY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 13 TH JULY, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONE R (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.