Omprakash Jagpatisingh Thakur, Vapi v. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle1-(2),, Surat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AT SURAT CAMP AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.122/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 DATE OF HEARING:18.5.10 DRAFTED:19.5.10 SHRI OMPRAKASH JAGPATISINGH THAKUR NR. BHOLEBABA AHRAM CHHARWADA ROAD VAPI PAN NO.AEUPS4496J V/S . ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 SURAT (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S.N.L AGARWAL AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI SANJEEV KASHYA SR-DR O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS ) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION OF ACIT CENT RAL CIRCLE-2 SURAT TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1.1 BECAUSE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS TRANSFERRED IN CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT. 1.2 BECAUSE IN ANY CASE LD. AO WAS REQUIRED TO REFER T HE MATTER TO CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX FOR DETERMINATION OF CORRECT JURISDICTION. 2. BECAUSE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.47 375/- BEING BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND R S.26 741/- BEING REFRESHMENT EXPENSE. 2. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING O F ONION AND POTATO AND COMMISSION AGENTS. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT 5.24% AS AGAINST 2.73% IN LAST YEAR THE PROFIT DECLARED IS MORE THER EFORE NO FURTHER CASE OF ADDITION IS MADE OUT. ITA NO.122/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2003-04 SH. OMPRAKASH J THAKUR V. ACIT CC-2 SRT PAGE 2 3. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO.1 HENCE IT IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO.2. LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT IT IS INCORRECT ON THE PAR T OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO CLAIM OF EXPENSE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSE AND FARMER REFRESHMENT EXPENSE. IN FACT ALL THESE EXPENSES FOR BUSINESS PROMOTION WERE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD EXPE NSE BY T.O. THERE ARE CLAIMS OF RS.62 477/- IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THIS YEAR THE CLAI M IS ONLY OF RS.47 375/-. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT EXPENSE UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSE AT RS. 79 140/- WERE CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHEREAS THIS YEAR CLAIM IS AT RS.26 741/- AND RS.29 875/- WHICH IS LOWER THEN EXPENSE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. SINCE NO OTHER REASON FOR DISALLOWAN CE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY AUTHORITIES BELOW ADDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. 4. LD. SR-DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES ARE THE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SIMILAR CLAIM IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO BUT DEBITED UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS AND CLAIM AS SUCH HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THEN THERE IS NO REASON NOT FOLLOWED THE SAME THIS YEAR ALSO. AS A RESULT BOTH ADDITIONS ARE DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21/05/2010 SD/- SD/- (T.K.SHARMA) (D. C.AGRAWAL) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD DATED : 21/05/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-II AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD