ITO, Alwar v. RAMAVTAR PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD., Alwar

ITA 724/JPR/2016 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 72423114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAACR7238N
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 724/JPR/2016
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Alwar
Respondent RAMAVTAR PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD., Alwar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 20-10-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 28-07-2016
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC) JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 724/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) ALWAR. CUKE VS. M/S RAMAVTAR PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD. F-308 M.I. ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACR 7238 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19/10/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/10/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/05/2016 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) ALWAR FOR THE A. Y. 2009-10. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN APPEAL IS DELETING THE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1 77 524/-. 3. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- ITA 724/JP/2016_ ITO VS M/S RAMAVTAR PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD. 2 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECTIFICATION ORDER AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND. FIND THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 77 534/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DEPRECIATION ON TRUCKS. IT IS STATED BY THE AO THAT APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEPRECIATION @ 30% ON TRUCKS WHICH IS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE TRUCKS ARE RUNNING ON HIRE . THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO 15% BY THE AO. 4.4 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT INCOME FROM RUNNIN G OF TRUCKS ON HIRE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND INVESTMENT IN TRUCK HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE BALANC E SHEET WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED. IT IS BY INADVERTENT MISTAK E THAT INCOME FROM RUNNING OF TRUCKS WAS NOT STATED IN FORM 3 CD OF THE AUDIT REPORT. A COPY OF THE AUDITED P&L A/C AND BALANCE SHEET HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD ALONGWITH A COPY OF T HE GRS ALONGWITH AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES RECEIVED. 4.5 HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD AND OTHER MATERIAL FILED ON RECORD I FIND THAT INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF GIVING TRUCKS ON HIRE HAS BEEN DULY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE P&L A/C AND IN THE PRECEDING YEAR & SUCCEEDING YEAR ALSO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED @ 30% BY THE AO. THEREFORE CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTORS I HOLD THAT IT IS THE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE AUDITOR TO NAVE NOT MENTIONED THIS FACT IN FORM 3CD OF THE AUDIT REPORT AND FOR THIS THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGLY I DELETE THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 1 77 534 MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT. ITA 724/JP/2016_ ITO VS M/S RAMAVTAR PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD. 3 4. THIS CASE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJEC TION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECATION @ 30% WHILE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN @ 15%. THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL ON R ECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF GIVING TRUCKS ON HIRE H AS BEEN DULY DECLARED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH E ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION @ 30% IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS. IT WAS INADVERTENT MISTAKE BY THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESS EE WHICH HAS NOT MENTIONED THIS FACT IN THE FORM 3CD OF THE AUDIT RE PORT. THE AUDITS OBJECTION WAS BASED ON THE FORM 3CD OF THE AUDIT REP ORT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECATION @ 30% AS THE A SSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING TRUCKS ON HIRE T HEREFORE IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING THE OR DER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR RECTIFICATION OF ANY MISTAK E. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT I SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/10/2016. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20 TH OCTOBER 2016 ITA 724/JP/2016_ ITO VS M/S RAMAVTAR PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD. 4 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE WARD 1(2) ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S RAMAVTAR PETRO CHEMICALS (P) LTD . ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 724/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR