FIVE STAR MARINE EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 965/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 September 2019AY 2004-053 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's disallowances did not result in any additional demand or liability for the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in seafood export, appealed against the disallowance of 50% of beheading and peeling expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance as the assessee failed to produce bills or vouchers.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal when the impugned disallowances did not lead to any demand or liability for the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 30.09.2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, in dated 22.11.2017 for the AY 2004-05.

2.

M/s.Five Star Marine Exports Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the business of exporting sea foods. While making the assessment for the AY 2004-05, the AO, inter alia, disallowed 50% of the beheading expenses and the peeling charges claimed by the assessee.Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) held, inter alia, that the assessee has produced the ledger account copy of beheading expenses and peeling charges only. The payments are made by cash and they are not examined. Since the assessee has not produced any bills or vouchers in respect of such claim either before the AO nor before him, therefore, he upheld the disallowances made by the AO.

Aggrieved against the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The assessee challenged the orders passed by the lower authorities.

While hearing the appeal, it was found that in the computation, the AO determined the total income in his order u/s 143(3) dt 22.12.2006 as under:

Income returned before allowing deduction u/s.80HHC Rs. 88,70,381 Less: Deduction u/s.Chapter VIA (i) 80 GGA Rs.12,000 (ii) 80HHC (separate sheet enclosed) Rs. NIL Rs. 12,000 -------------- -------------- Rs. 88,58,381 Income tax thereon Rs. 31,00,438 Add: Surcharge @ 2.5% Rs. 77,510 --------------- Rs. 31,77,943 --------------- Since the impugned disallowances are not forming part of the computation in the above order and the corresponding demands are not raised on the assessee, we asked the ld AR how this appeal is maintainable. The ld AR submitted that this aspect was not noticed by them at all.

4.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant materials. It is clear from the above, though the AO discussed the impugned issues in the assessment order, neither he raised a demand corresponding to such disallowances nor the assessee has shown that it has any liability on the impugned issues which is being denied in this appeal within the scope of class (a) of sub-section 1 of section 246 and hence the impugned appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as dismissed.

More judgments on Section 246

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 246 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →