M/s. Suraj Corporation, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2731/AHD/2012 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 273120514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAMFS3284Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2731/AHD/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Suraj Corporation, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 21-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 20-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 20-11-2014
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 05-12-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA.NO. 2731/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) M/S SURAJ CORPORATION NAVRATNA APARTMENT OPP. HIRABA PARTY PLOT NR. EXPRESS HIGHWAY CTM CROSS ROADS AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. THE ITO WARD 9(1) AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AAMFS3284Q /BY APPELLANT : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI A.R. /BY RESPONDENT : SHRI V.K. SINGH SR. D.R. !' /DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2014 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2014 ORDER I.T.A. NO. 2731/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S SURAJ CORPORATION VS. ITO) PAGE 2 PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV AHMEDABAD DATED 03-10-2012 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN FRAMING ASSES SMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE ACTION OF REOPENING IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT PERMISSIBLE EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACT. THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.38 67 400/- CLA IMED U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHE R ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS EXPLANATIONS AND INFO RMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHE D. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B/ C/D OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF AS SESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 38 67 400/- WH ICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). LD. ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE APART FROM RAISING I.T.A. NO. 2731/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S SURAJ CORPORATION VS. ITO) PAGE 3 GROUNDS HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COMPRISES DEVELOPMENT AGRE EMENT FORM E IN RESPECT OF DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK COMMENCEME NT CERTIFICATE AND VARIOUS PLANS. THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED T O BE VERY OLD. THE CONCERNED HOUSING PROJECT IN QUESTION WAS COMPLETED LONG BACK AND MANAGEMENT OF HOUSING SCHEME AND MANAGEMENT OF FLAT WAS HANDED OVER BY CONCERNED HOUSING SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY AL L DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO HANDED OVER TO MANAGEMENT OF THE SAID SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE AT A GIVEN POINT O F TIME. AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE SAME COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE LOWER AUT HORITIES TO ASCERTAIN ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE NOW BEEN C OLLECTED IN BITS AND PIECES FROM GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND SOCIETY MANAGEMENT. THESE EVIDENCES GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE OF AL LOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME SHO ULD BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER BE DECIDED ON MERIT ACCORDINGLY. LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT APATHY OF ASSESSEE TOWARDS LOWER AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED BY ENTER TAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS STAGE. 2.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE ADMIT TED THAT GOES ROOT OF THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). FRO M ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENT ED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT SUBMITTING ABOVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE B EFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR THE REASON DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE I.T.A. NO. 2731/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S SURAJ CORPORATION VS. ITO) PAGE 4 ALLOW THE ADMISSION OF ABOVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SINCE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT HAVING THE SAME SO WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) ON MERIT AS PER LAW AND FACT AFTER PROVID ING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORIN G THE ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. 3. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R A.K. & & & & ' ' ' ' ('% ('% ('% ('% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. + / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. // 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. '45 / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 589 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / &