Transpek Industry Limited,, Baroda v. The ACIT, Circle-4,, Baroda

ITA 1912/AHD/2014 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 191220514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAACT8639B
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1912/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Transpek Industry Limited,, Baroda
Respondent The ACIT, Circle-4,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags 1912-ahd-2014
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 23-06-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD .. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1912/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. 6 TH FLOOR MARBLE ARCH RACE COURCE CIRCLE BARODA 390 007 / VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE-4 BARODA $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACT 8639 B ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : -NONE- ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH SR.DR + *- / DATE OF HEARING 09/11/2017 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 / 11 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-III BARODA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 06/03/2014 IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY ORDER UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 25/03/2010 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2004-05. ITA NO. 1912/AH D/2014 TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ACTION OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS.1 58 277/- T OWARDS CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION ON PURCHASE OF SMALL VALUE ITEMS OF CA PITAL NATURE. 3. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05 THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE COST OF CERTAIN SMALL VALU E ASSETS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE THE AMOUNT IS BELOW RS.5 000/- AG GREGATING TO RS.1 58 277/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY REASON FOR SUCH CLAIM TOWARDS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY TH E AO THAT AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF CONCEPT OF BLOCK OF ASSETS IN THE A CT ALL CAPITAL EXPENSES IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE R ESPECTIVE BLOCK OF ASSETS. THE AO ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF E XPENSES AND ALSO IMPOSED PENALTY FOR WRONG CLAIM THEREON. 4. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE AO TOWARDS IMPOSING PENALTY. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY THE MATTER IS PROCEEDED EX-PARTE . ITA NO. 1912/AH D/2014 TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 3 - 7. THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. THE LIMITED CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS TOWARDS IMPOSI TION OF PENALTY ON DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPE NDITURE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE OF CAPITAL NATURE. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO ON THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED SUCH ITEMS OF CAPITAL NATURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THIS HAS RESULTED IN INCREASE IN THE TAXABLE LOSS OF THE YEAR. IN THESE FACTS WE O BSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIAL CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES A PART OF WHICH WAS SET OFF DURING THE YEAR. THE MEAGER AMOUNT OF RS.1.58 LAKHS WOULD NOT HAVE NOT LED ANY REVENUE LOSS EVEN IF IT WAS CLAIMED AS CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE. THUS THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DEVOID OF BONAFIDE PER SE . HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE THINK THAT THE DI SCRETION VESTED WITH THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE PENALTY O N ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS .1.58 LAKHS. ITA NO. 1912/AH D/2014 TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 4 - 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED EX-PARTE . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 / 1 1 /201 7 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/ 11 /2017 4..+ .+../ T.C. NAIR SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III BARODA 5. 9:-+67 670 5 / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. < / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER (9-- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..30.11.17 (DICTATION-PAD 8-PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30.11.17 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.30.11.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.11.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER