Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
G Galaxy Infra Space Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs The Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad on 18 June, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'ए', अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " A " BENCH, AHMEDABAD सम ी द प कुमार के डया, लेखा सद य एवं स ु ी मधु मता रॉय, या यक सद य ।
BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.237/Ahd/2016 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2012-13) G Galaxy Infra Space Pvt.Ltd. बनाम/ DCIT F-14, G Galaxy Complex Vs. Circle2(1)(1) Opp.Galaxy Cinema,NH N0.08, Ahmedabad Naroda, Ahmedabad थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AADCG 6607 (अपीलाथ( /Appellant) .. ( )यथ( / Respondent) अपीलाथ( ओर से / Appellant by : None )यथ( क+ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr.DR सन ु वाई क+ तार ख / Da t e of H ea r i n g 11/06/2018 घोषणा क+ तार ख /Da t e o f Pr o no u n c e me n t 18/06/2018 आदे श / O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-, Ahmedabad dated 15.10.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1.0 The order framed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is erroneous in the eyes of law and contrary to the facts. The CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order which is bad in law. The notices were either bad in law or not capable of compliance or were complied with. The order be quashed.
2.0 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 6,68,500/- being expenditure on foreign travels. The appellant submits that expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and further the nexus was established with evidences. The disallowance of Rs. 6,68,500/- is contrary to the facts and provisions of law. The disallowance of be quashed. k, -2- ITA No.237/Ahd/2016 G Galaxy Infra Space Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2012-13 2.1 The appellant without prejudice to above submits that disallowance of Rs.6,68,500/-
is excessive. The disallowance if any on any technical ground is upheld it be restricted to a nominal amount.
3.0 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.12,33,673/- out of loan processing charges and mortgage charges holding them to be expenditure of capital nature. The appellant submits that expenses are of revenue nature incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business because the loans were for the working capital i.e. on current account. The disallowance of Rs.12,33,673/- is erroneous. The disallowance be quashed.
3.1 The appellant without prejudice to above submits that in view of provisions of section 2(28) expenditure of Rs.12,33,673/- fell within purview of interest and therefore deductible under section 36(i)(iii). The appellant submit that disallowance be therefore quashed.
3.2 The appellant without prejudice to above submits that in any event disallowance of Rs. 12,33,673/- is excessive and the same be substantially reduced.
4.0 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding action of invoking provisions of section 40A(3) and disallowance of Rs. 1,98,070/-. The appellant submits that payments fell within purview of Rule 6DD and therefore the assessing officer ought not to have made any disallowance. The disallowance of Rs.1,98,070/-be quashed.
4.1 The appellant without prejudice to above submits that disallowance of Rs.1,98,070/- is excessive. The disallowance be substantially reduced.
5.0 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.14,80,736/- out of interest. The appellant submits that each and every amount of Rs. 2.78 crores was utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The disallowance is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. Interest of Rs.14,80,736/- is deductible u/s 36(i)iii). The disallowance of Rs. 14,80,736/- therefore be quashed.
6.0 The CIT(A) erred in upholding demand of Rs.18,60,500/-. The appellant submits that the AO be directed to compute tax on the income and allow credit as per the law. The AO be directed to delete interest charged u/ss 234B and 234C.
3. It is noticed that when the matter came up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-appellant despite notice having been sent by Registered Post (AD on record). It thus appears that the assessee is not interested to proceed with the matter.
-3- ITA No.237/Ahd/2016G Galaxy Infra Space Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2012-13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution.
4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 18/06/2018
Sd/- Sd/-
( द प कुमार के डया) ( स
ु ी मधु मता रॉय)
लेखा सद य या यक सद य
( PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 18/ 06 /2018
ट .सी.नायर, व. न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
आदे श क ! त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ( / The Appellant
2. )यथ( / The Respondent.
3. संबं7धत आयकर आयु8त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु8त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad
5. 9वभागीय त न7ध, आयकर अपील य अ7धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड= फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स)या9पत त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad