IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "C" BENCH AHMADABAD
, Û ``'
,
Before Shri G.C.Gupta, Vice President and
[^ ^ .., Ú¢
Shri T.R. Meena, Accountant Member
^ .., ¢
ITA No. 186/Ahd/2010
Assessm ent Year :2005-06
Sita Anne Saikumar V/s . Income Tax Officer,
Prop. M/s. Sailaxmi Extrusion Engg. Ward 2 (5),
284/7, GIDC, Makarpura, Baroda. Baroda.
P AN No. ADIPA8247N
(Appellant) .. (Respondent)
/ By Appellant Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R.
× /By Respondent Shri O. P. Meena, Sr. D.R.
/Date of Hearing 24.04.2014
/Date of Pronouncement 02.05.2014
ORDER
PER : Shri T.R.Meena, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-II,
Baroda, order dated 06.11.2009 for A.Y. 2005-06. The effective grounds of
appeal are as under:
"1. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.9,95,000/-
under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by treating the said amount
as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee.
2. The C.I.T.(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of
Rs.4,56,260/- under section 68 on the basis that the assessee
could not explain the source of capital introduction.
3. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of an
amount of Rs.2,50,384/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
4. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.31,440/-
incurred by the assessee towards loan processing charges which
I T A No . 1 86 / Ah d /2 0 10 S it a A n ne Sa ik um a r v s . I T O
A. Y . 2 00 5- 06 Page 2
the assessee had claimed as revenue expenditure allowable under
section 37(1) of the Act.
5. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of
Rs.17,396/- being 10% of the overall telephone expenses debited
to profit and loss account by assessee on the pretext of it being
disallowed as personal use.
6. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of
Rs.15,944/- being 10% of the overall vehicle expenses debited to
profit and loss account by assessee on the pretext of it being
disallowed as personal use.
7. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in confirming charging of interest under
sec.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act."
2. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are against upholding the addition of Rs. 9,95,000/-
and Rs. 4,56,260/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act. The ld. A.O. held that assessee has
not proved the genuineness of the transaction, identity of the person and
creditworthiness of the creditors. Thus, he made addition u/s. 68 of the IT Act.
The appellant stage also, the assessee could not controvert the finding given
by the A.O. in the assessment order. Thus, ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the
addition. Before us, ld. Counsel submitted that these additions were
confirmed in absence of not considering the evidence by the lower authorities.
The ld. A.R. further claimed that assessee has all evidences to prove the loan
as well as cash introduced in the capital account are genuine and have all the
evidences to prove the case. Therefore, he requested to set aside the both
issues to the A.O. for re-consideration, which has been accepted by the ld. Sr.
D.R. In the interest of justice, we also feel that both the issues required to be
reexamined by the A.O. afresh. Accordingly, we set aside both the grounds of
appeal to the A.O.
I T A No . 1 86 / Ah d /2 0 10 S it a A n ne Sa ik um a r v s . I T O
A. Y . 2 00 5- 06 Page 3
3. Ground no.3 is against disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) for Rs.2,50,384/- for
not deducting the TDS on contractual payments and ground no.4 is against
confirming the addition for disallowance of Rs.31,440/- to loan processing
charges pertained to plant and machinery as capital expenditure. Further
disallowance made by the A.O. under the head `telephone expenses' in
ground no.5 and `vehicle expenses' as per ground no.6 has been made @
20% out of total expenses, which were reduced the 10% by the ld. CIT(A).
We also feel that as main ground of appeal have been set aside to the A.O.,
ground no. 4 to 6 are also required to be re-examined by the A.O. in the
interest of justice. Thus, we set aside all the grounds of appeal to the A.O. for
de novo. Need not to mention here that assessee should be allowed
reasonable opportunity of being heard at the time of deciding set aside
proceeding.
4. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in open Court on 02.05.2014
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.C.Gupta) (T.R. Meena)
Vice President Accountant Member
True Copy
S.K.Sinha
/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. / Appellant
2. × / Respondent
3. / Concerned CIT
4. - / CIT (A)
5. , , / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. [ / Guard file.
By order/ ,
/
,
|
