U.B. AIR P. LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (J.M.) AND SHRI PRAMOD KUM AR (A.M.) ITA NO. 1287/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S U.B. AIR PVT. LTD. HARI BUILDING 62 SHAHID BHAGATSINGH ROAD FORT MUMBAI - 400 023. PAN : AAACU 1399K VS. D.C.I.T. 5(3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. GOPAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.P. SINGH (CIT DR) O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL J.M. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- I. LEGAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12 /2008 UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED A ND SET ASIDE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME T AX RULES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVE NTED BY SUFFICIENT ITA NO.1287/MUM/2010 M/S U.B. AIR PVT. LTD. L 2 CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PR AYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. II. MERITS:- 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE 10% OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO ` 90 71 894/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED FOR RUNNING THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO ` 90 71 894/- IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURES INCU RRED FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE BUILDING AMOUNTING TO ` 1 69 612/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED FOR REGULAR MAI NTENANCE OF THE OFFICE BUILDING AND TO KEEP THEM IN PROPER WORKING CONDITI ONS. HENCE THE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWI NG THE SAME. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE DELETE D. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING 30% OF THE EXPENDITURES AMOU NTING TO ` 99 51 051/- INCURRED ON THE REPAIRS OF MACHINERY WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ORDER PRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE MACHINERY IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAM E MAY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT IS REQUIRED TO INCUR CERTAIN EXPENDITURE FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENAN CE OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE OF 30% OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO ` 99 51 051/- INCURRED FOR THE REPAIRS TO MACHINERY IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAM E MAY BE DELETED. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO ` 14 38 784/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ORDER PRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWING THE UNSECURED LOANS IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT BORROWED ANY NEW LOANS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEAR. THE UNSECURED LOANS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET ARE CARRIED FORWARD LOANS OF EARLIER YEARS. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PR AYS THAT THE ITA NO.1287/MUM/2010 M/S U.B. AIR PVT. LTD. L 3 DISALLOWANCE OF UNSECURED LOANS IS NOT AT ALL JUSTI FIED AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT:- UNDER INSTRUCTIONS I AM WITHDRAWING THE APPEAL SD/- K. GOPAL 15.2.2011 IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL FILED WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. D.R. 3. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER SU PPORTING MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS DISMISSED BEING WITHD RAWN. 4. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 25 TH FEBRUARY 2011. RK ITA NO.1287/MUM/2010 M/S U.B. AIR PVT. LTD. L 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 9 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5- MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH F MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI ITA NO.1287/MUM/2010 M/S U.B. AIR PVT. LTD. L 5 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 15 . 2 .11 18.2.11 SR PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR ON 1 7 . 2 .11 18.2.11 SR PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACE BEFORE THE 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR PS SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CL ERK SR PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DESPATCH SR PS