M/S SRI RAGHAVENDRA LORRY SERVICE,HYDERABAD vs. THE DCIT, VIJAYAWADA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 207/VIZ/2015 (Asst. Year : 2010-11) M/s. Sri Raghavendra Lorry vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Service, Phase-III, Plot No. 5, Vijayawada. Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. PAN No. ABHFS 1240 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri C. Subrahmanyam – FCA. Department By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR Date of hearing : 05/09/2018. Date of pronouncement : 12/09/2018. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada, dated 30/03/2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is engaged in the business of execution of transport contracts, filed its return of income admitting total loss of Rs. 1,35,98,701/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

2 ITA No.207/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Sri Raghavendra Lorry Service)

referred to as 'Act') on 03/01/2013. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to produce books of account, bills and vouchers for the expenditure claimed. In absence of production of original bills & vouchers, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and estimated the total income at 15% on the gross receipts. Subsequently, ld. Commissioner on examination of records, it is noticed that assessee has claimed huge depreciation and the Assessing Officer without examining the same, simply allowed the claim of the assessee, and issued show-cause notice dated 30/01/2015. After considering the explanation of the assessee, the ld. Commissioner has observed that the Assessing Officer without examining the entire details relating to the depreciation, i.e. whether assessee is the owner of the lorries or not, simply allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after giving opportunity to the assessee. 3. On appeal before us, ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer after rejecting the books of account, estimated the income of the assessee at

3 ITA No.207/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Sri Raghavendra Lorry Service)

15% on gross receipts, which is on higher side and therefore, depreciation is allowed. 4. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that the Assessing Officer has not examined the details of the lorries, on which depreciation is claimed, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 6. The assessee is engaged in the business of execution of transport contracts and claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,93,47,466/-. The Assessing Officer without calling any details and without enquiry in respect of depreciation, simply allowed the claim made by the assessee. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner while exercising powers conferred in section 263 of the Act, called the details and found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the details and pass the orders in accordance with law. We find that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue at all and therefore, it is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and therefore, the ld. Commissioner rightly exercised the powers conferred in section

4 ITA No.207/VIZ/2015 (M/s. Sri Raghavendra Lorry Service)

263 directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment as per law. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 12th day of Sep., 2018.

Sd/- sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 12th Sep., 2018. vr/- Copy to: 1. The Assessee – M/s. Sri Raghavendra Lorry Service, Phase-III, Plot No. 5, Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. 2. The Revenue – DCIT, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The D.R., Visakhapatnam. 6. Guard file. By order

(VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.