ELITE AGRO SPECIALITIES,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. The order of the authorities below is contrary to facts, devoid of merits, against the well laid down principles of law and denying natural justice to the appellant. 2. The authorities below have disallowed the claim for depreciation by totally misconstruing the what was submitted and what is submitted through the evidences adduced and hence the claim for depreciation amounting to Rs. 5,77,108/- may kindly be allowed.

The authorities below have disallowed the claim for interest paid on unsecured loan stating that the Form -15G collected from those from whom no tax was deducted was not complete in all respects. It is a well settled law that disallowance under S. 40(a)(ia) cannot be made for incompleteness in the Form 15G, as submission of Form 15G is a procedural requirement. [Marikamba Transport Co. 231 Taxmann 484 (Kar)]. The AO disallowed the entire interest paid amounting to Rs. 3.65 lacs, where as payments against which Form 15G was obtained was for Rs. 1.70 lakhs only. In view of the legal position being so, the entire claim for deduction of interest paid amounting to Rs. 3.65 lakhs may be allowed. Further, the appellant may be given an opportunity to furnish the Form 15G duly completed to the AO for the AO to consider the claim of the appellant after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The ad hoc disallowance of Rs. I lakh out of the exhibition and sales promotion expenses of Rs. 1.46 lakhs may be set aside as the entire expenses are authentic, appropriate and properly accounted for. Such expenses are incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of business of the appellant and are fully supported with documents and duly audited under the provisions of the IT Act 5. For these and any other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant pleads that the appeal may be allowed.”

It emerges during the course of hearing that the CITA’s lower appellate order herein confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making these disallowances/additions forming subject matter of adjudication before us, has been passed exparte. Learned counsel submits that the assessee could not cooperate in the lower appellate proceedings on account of communication gap(s) at the level of it’s auditor vis-à-vis arguing counsel. He further undertakes to appear and explain all the relevant facts and circumstances if granted one more effective innings in the lower appellate proceedings. Faced with this situation, we reject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the CIT(A)’s findings and leave it open for him to decide all these assessee’s substantive grounds afresh in accordance with law subject to a rider that the taxpayer will get three effective opportunities to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings at it’s own risk and responsibility only.