Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Amit Shukla, & Shri Ashwani Taneja
आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): These appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders of Ld. order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Mumbai, {(in short ‘CIT(A)’}, wherein identical
Amal Ltd. 2 issue is involved and therefore these have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri K.K. Ved, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri Ganesh Bare, Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue.
Ground Nos.2 & 3: In these grounds, the assessee has challenged the action of lower authorities in making disallowance of Naphthalene set-off of Rs.18,34,425/-. This is second round of proceedings. In the first round, it was directed by the Tribunal that this loss should be considered as trading loss and for this purpose of verification of facts were needed. The AO made disallowance without passing any speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that this loss was related to Roha factory which was sold in June 1993 when the business was discontinued. It was further held that since this loss related to the unit which was sold in June 1993, no such loss can be allowed to the assessee. 3.1. Before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has misunderstood the facts and gave contradictory findings and therefore, the said loss has been inadvertently disallowed. 3.2. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
Amal Ltd. 3 3.3. It is noted by us that Ld. CIT(A) had himself stated that business was discontinued in June 1993, the impugned assessment year 1993-94. Thus, the concerned financial Year is 1992-93, wherein the business was very much in existence as per own findings of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the basis adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) for making disallowance are factually incorrect. No other basis have been given for confirming the disallowance by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, correcting the mistake done by the Ld. CIT(A), we allow this loss. Thus ground no.1 & 2 are allowed.
Ground Nos.3 & 4: In these grounds the assessee merely argued that only an appropriate direction is required to be given to AO to reinforce the direction already given by the Ld. CIT(A) for considering the alternate claim of the assessee for allowing depreciation for the correct amount of Rs.21,33,089/- 4.1. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and found that Ld. CIT(A) has given clear direction to AO vide para 8 of his order to look into the matter and verify the claim of the depreciation of Rs.21,33,089/- and allow it as per law. We also direct the AO to give effect to the direction given by the Ld. CIT(A). This ground may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Ground Nos. 5 & 6 are general and therefore, dismissed.
With regard to this appeal, it was stated by the Ld. Counsel that in case relief is allowed in , then this appeal may be treated as infructuous. Since, we have Amal Ltd. 4 allowed relief in Ld. Counsel, therefore, we treat this appeal as infructuous and dismiss the same as such. 7. In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd August, 2016.