M/s. Prasad Media Corporation Ltd, Hyderabad v. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1896/HYD/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 189622514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACCP1745N
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1896/HYD/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Prasad Media Corporation Ltd, Hyderabad
Respondent DCIT, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 08-11-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1454/HYD/11 &1896/HYD/10 ASSTT. YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYDERABAD. (PAN:AACCP 1745 N) VS JCIT RANGE - 13 HYDERABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SRI C.S. SUBRAHMANYAM RESPONDENT BY : SRI B.V. PRASAD REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 15-03-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 -03-2012. ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY J.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 1-6-2011 IN ITA NO.0299/C IT (A)-II/2007-08 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05- 06 AND IN ITA NO.0275/CIT (A)-II/2008-09 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOL VED IN L THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL IN NATU RE THESE ARE HEARD CLUBBED AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. BO TH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS:- ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS AGAINST LAW WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL EVEN AFTER THE AO REPORTED IN HIS REMAND REPORT TO THE CIT (A) THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL WAS EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AFTER ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GETTING IT VETTED BY THE AO AND AFTER BRINGING ON RECORD ADEQUATE EVIDENCE FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING MULTIPLEX THEATR ES AND ATTENDANT FACILITIES. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE A O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ADDITIONS TO THE F IXED ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 36 23 356/-. THE AO ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE A LONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE LIKE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE FIXED A SSETS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 28 55 364/-. THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO PRODUCE BILLS OR VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF A DIFFERENT IAL AMOUNT OF RS.7 67 992/-. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT ON E INVOICE OF RS.8 21 923/- WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE NAME OF M/S. PREMIER AGENCIES. THE ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 3 AO THEREFORE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S PROPOSED TO DISALLOW DEPRECIATION PROPORTIONATELY A T THE RATE OF 25% ON THE AFORESAID TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.7 67 992/- PLUS RS.8 21 923/- AND MADE AN ADDITI ON OF RS.3 97 479/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. AS PER THE ORDE R SHEET ENTRY DATED 28-12-2007 THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE AGRE ED TO SUCH ADDITION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 A N ADDITION OF RS.2 38 487/- WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE SIMILAR LINES. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) CHALLENGING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. BEFORE THE CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTAIN BILLS AND IN VOICES BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PRAYED FOR ACCEPT ANCE OF THE SAME. THE CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPOR T FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE AO ON 23-3-2011 SENT A REPORT TO THE CIT (A) WH EREIN THE AO HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AF TER EXAMINATION WAS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. HOWEVER THE AO IN THE SAID REPORT OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION THE AO WAS PRECLUDED FROM FURTHER GOING DEEP IN THE MATTER; THEREFORE THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND SHOUL D BE DISMISSED. THE CIT (A) AFTER RECEIVING THE REMAND REPORT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THA T WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND AGREED FOR ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT PROPOSED BY THE A O IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE ADDIT ION SINCE THE ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE HAS PRECLUDED T HE AO FROM GOING FURTHER DEEP IN TO THE MATTERS AND THE ADMISSION IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. FOR ARRIVING AT THE ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 4 AFORESAID CONCLUSION THE CIT (A) RELIED ON TWO DECI SIONS OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF SRI D. RA JA RAO ORDER DATED 29-7-2004 IN ITA NO.718/HYD/2002 AND IN CASE OF SRI RAJ REDDY IN ITA NO.830/HYD/09. AGAINS T THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DISMISSING TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL IS NOW BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEF ORE US THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE BILLS/INVOICES OF THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE AFORESAI D TWO AMOUNTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED TO THE AOS SATISFACT ION AS THEY WERE MISPLACED AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GO ING TO BE TIME BARRED BY 31-12-2007 THE AR OF THE ASSE SSEE HAD TO AGREE TO THE AOS PROPOSAL FOR ADDITION OF T HE AMOUNT BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 67 992/- AND RS.8 21 923/- FOR WHICH BILLS AND INVOICES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE MADE THOROUGH VERIFICATION OF ITS RECORDS AND FOUND OUT PURCHASE BILLS AND INVOI CES OF THE FIXED ASSETS THE COST OF WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE FILED ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) IT WAS CONTENDED BY TH E LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT (A) ADMITTE D THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPOR T FROM THE AO. THE AO HAVING EXAMINED THE BILLS AND INVOI CES AND THE SAME WERE FOUND IN ORDER. THE CIT (A) SHOU LD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE EVIDENCES BY OBSERVING THAT S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITIONS IT IS BI NDING ON HIM AND HE CANNOT AGITATE THE ADDITIONS IN THIS APP EAL. ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 5 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE REASONING OF THE CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO DUCE THE EVIDENCE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION HIS APPEAL CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER GOING THRO UGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 28 -12- 2007 THE UNDISPUTED FACT WHICH EMERGES IS THAT THE ADDITION WAS PROPOSED TO BE MADE ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS F OR THE ASSETS WHICH WERE ADDED TO THE FIXED ASSETS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO SUCH ADDITION PROPOSED BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO A FACT TH AT BEFORE THE CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BILLS AND INVOICE S OF THE FIXED ASSETS WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY THE AO AN D PUT UP AN EXPLANATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAME AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE CIT (A) IN FACT CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. AFTER GOING THROUGH TH E CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 23-3-2011 A COP Y OF WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF PAPER B OOK WE FIND THAT THE AO IN FACT HAS EXAMINED THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE AND HAS FOUND THEM TO BE IN ORDER. HOWEVER HE RECOMMENDED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAI M ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR ADDITIONS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT (A) ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE AO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELL ANT ONLY ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITIONS ON THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SUC H ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 6 ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PRECLUDED TH E AO FROM GOING FURTHER DEEP INTO THE MATTER EVEN OTHER THAN THE ADDITIONS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS MADE WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE A RE BINDING ON HIM AND HE CANNOT CHALLENGE SUCH ADDITIO N. FOR COMING SUCH A CONCLUSION THE CIT (A) HAS RELIED UPON TWO ORDERS OF THE ITAT. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE GI ST OF THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDITIO NS WERE NOT MADE ON SPECIFIC GROUND BUT THEY HAVE BEEN MADE ON OVER ALL CONSIDERATION. THAT BESIDES BOTH THE ASSE SSEE AND THE AR HAVE AGREED TO SUCH ADDITIONS. IN THE P RESENT CASE THE CONSENT TO THE ADDITIONS MADE WAS GIVEN B Y THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE FIXED ASSETS FO R WHICH BILLS AND INVOICES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. THE AO H AS NOT MENTIONED ABOUT ANY OTHER ISSUE. IN FACT THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 MAKES IT CLEA R THAT APART FROM THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS AND INVOICES THE AO HAD ALSO MAD E OTHER ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE THE CIT (A)S REASONING T HAT THE CONSENT OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRECLUDED THE AO FROM GOING DEEP INTO THE MATTER EVEN FOR MAKING OTHER ADDITIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN OUR VIEW IF THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT FOUND OUT THE BILLS AND VOUCHE RS FOR NON PRODUCTION OF WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE HE NEE DS TO BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THEM AND ESTABLISH HIS CASE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER WE THINK IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO FILE OF THE AO DIRECTING HIM TO EX AMINE ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 7 THE BILLS AND INVOICES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FIND OUT WHETHER THEY ARE GENUINE OR NOT AFTER MAKING SU CH ENQUIRY AS THE AO MAY THINK IT JUST AND PROPER. I F THE BILLS AND INVOICES ARE FOUND TO BE GENUINE AND IT IS FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT HAS BEEN MADE TO T HE FIXED ASSETS THEN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM CAN BE ACCE PTED. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE AO SHALL ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH HIS CAS E. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 -03-2012 . SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH MARCH 2012. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. 6-1-38/1 OFF: NTR GARDENS HYDERABAD. 2. JCIT RANGE-13 HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A)-II HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED HYDERABAD 5. THE DR ITAT HYDERABAD JMR* ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 8 ITA NOS.1454 & 1896/HYD/2011 M/S. PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION LTD. HYD. =============================== 9