ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 507/CTK/2014Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 February 2018AY 2010-1116 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance. However, it remanded the issues of share application money and sundry creditors back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed higher depreciation on hydra machines, treated share application money as unexplained cash credit, and had a difference in sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, added share application money, and added the sundry creditor difference to income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for higher depreciation on hydra machines and whether share application money and sundry creditor balances were genuine.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 194-I,Section 68,Section 133(6),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 131(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Panda, AR
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Pronounced: 28/02

Heard together (2 matters)

C.O. No.08/CTK/2015
ITA No.507/CTK/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

per law.

The third disputed issue is that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the

difference of sundry credit balance of Rs.1,00,000/- based on the

submission of the assessee. We find that the CIT(A) has dealt on this

issue but there is no evidence placed either in the appellate proceedings

or during assessment proceedings by the assessee except mentioning

that M/s. Vaishnavi Road Carriers has raised bill of higher amount and it

15 ITA No. 507/CT K/ 2014 c.o. No. 08/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1

was settled for a lower amount. We find that there should be supporting

reasons for reducing the bill and the confirmation of the third party in the

assessment proceedings regarding the difference. Accordingly, we set

aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and remit this back to the file

of the Assessing Officer to call for information and verify the same and

pass the order as per law.

11.

The C.O. filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 25 days.

After considering the condonation petition, we are convinced that the

assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the cross objection

and filed delayed by 25 days. Hence, we condone the delay and admit

the cross objection for our adjudication.

12.

We find that the cross objection is in support of the order of the

CIT(A). In view of our decision in the revenue’s appeal, the C.O. filed by

the assessee is rendered infructuous and hence, dismissed.

13.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

as infructuous.

Order pronounced on 28 /02/2018. SD/- SD/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 28 /02/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS

16 ITA No. 507/CT K/ 2014 c.o. No. 08/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The revenue: ACIT, Circle 2(1), Sambalpur 2. The respondent/assessee:M/s. Divakar Engineering Pvt Ltd., 3rd floor, Paradise Chamber, Budharaja, Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →