Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
M.S. Khurana Engg. Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH - AHMEDABAD
(BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND N. S. SAINI, AM)
ITA No.1693/Ahd/2007
A. Y.: 2003-04
The D. C. I. T., Cent. Circle-1(2), Vs M/s. Khurana Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
Room No. 305, 3rd floor, 2nd Floor, "MSK",
Aayakar Bhavan, Near Kashiram RAna Bhavan,
Ashram Road, Passport Office, Panjrapole
Ahmedabad Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad
PA No. AABCM 4514F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Raja Ram Shah, DR
Respondent by Shri M. D. Keswani, AR
ORDER
PER BHAVNESH SAINI: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 29th December, 2006 for assessment year 2003-04.
2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material on record.
3. On grounds No.1 and 2 of the appeal the Revenue has challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.6,30,591/- on account of diesel and oil expenses and in deleting the addition of Rs.3,58,008/- on account of truck maintenance expenses. The learned CIT(A) following his appellate order for preceding assessment year 2002- 03 deleted both the additions. The learned CIT(A) also noted that there is no change in the circumstances as compared to the earlier year. On going through the assessment order, we find that the AO made the additions on the above issues by following his findings for the preceding ITA No.1693/Ahd/2007 2 M/s. Khurana Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
assessment year. No independent finding is given as to how disallowance is permissible on the above issues. In the absence of any independent finding the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of both the additions. The learned Counsel also filed copy of the order of the Tribunal in case of the same assessee for preceding assessment year 2002-03 in ITA No.1350/Ahd/2006 dated 19-12-2008 on which departmental appeal was dismissed on account of diesel and oil expenses. It would, therefore, prove that the finding of the learned CIT(A) have been confirmed in deleting the disallowance of the expenditure. In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). We confirm his findings and dismiss these grounds of appeal of the Revenue. As a result, Grounds No.1 and 2 of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
4. On ground No.3 of the appeal, the Revenue challenged deletion of addition of Rs.1,28,040/-on account of prior period expenses. It was submitted before the learned CIT(A) that Rs.1,28,040/- was wrongly debited to the prior period expenses. The assessee also filed certificate issued by the auditor that this amount was wrongly debited to the profit & loss account. The learned CIT(A) considering the above fact, deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition of the rest of the amount on account of prior period expenses. The learned Counsel for the assessee filed copy of the same certificate during the course of hearing and submitted that since the assessee did not make any claim of Rs.1,28,040/- in the profit & loss account and it was a mistake by the assessee in debiting the same to be prior period expenses, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition to that extent. The above facts would show that the learned CIT(A) on consideration of the material on record and considering the certificate of the auditor correctly deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.1,28,040/-. The learned CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions of the assessee in the impugned order ITA No.1693/Ahd/2007 3 M/s. Khurana Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
in which also it is clearly mentioned that the aforesaid amount was not debited as expenditure in the profit & loss account and due to inadvertence and oversight and mistake of the auditor the same was shown as prior period expenses. The learned CIT(A) on verification of the facts from the certificate issued by the auditor correctly deleted the addition to that extent. The learned DR has not produced any document contrary to the finding of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, there is no basis for interference with the order of the learned CIT(A). We confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. As a result, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
5. As a result, the departmental appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on 23-04-2010
Sd/- Sd/-
(N. S. SAINI) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date : 23-04-2010
Lakshmikant/-
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) concerned
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File
BY ORDER
Dy. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad