9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit and after hearing the ld. DR, the delay in filing of the above three appeals by 84 days is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.164/HYD/2022 for AY 2012-13 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer ("the AO") as upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('"NFAC") vide order dated 13.12.2021 and also the addition made therein is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and deleted. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/NFAC has erred in law and on facts, in making and upholding addition of Rs.1,66,42,682/- (reduced by the NFAC to Rs. 1,24,95,942/-). The said addition is illegal and bad in law and is liable to be set aside and deleted. 3. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the said depreciation as claimed by the Assessee is justified and as such allowable under the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that assessee has shown revenue from operations at Rs.17,98,27,285/- and other income of Rs.1,18,49,235/- and net loss at Rs.6,14,94,116/-. He noted that in the previous year 2007-08, the assessee company had acquired the business of two companies, namely (a) M/s. Arine Orgachem Pvt.Ltd.(b) M/s. Ferico Laboratories Ltd on slump sale basis without assigning any values to individual assets or liabilities. He noted that during the assessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 it was seen that the total consideration paid was Rs.40,42,54,876/- in respect of M/s. Ariance Orgachem Pvt.Ltd. and Rs.4,51,30,163/- in respect of M/s. Ferico Laboratories Ltd. and the assessee has apportioned the total consideration received to various assets as under:- Particulars Ariance Orgachem Pvt.Ltd.(Amount in INR) Ferico Laboratories Ltd.(amount in INR) Lease hold land 24,62,807 11,07,913 Building 11,50,63,879 44,80,300 Plant & Machinery 18,68,30,139 1,20,561 Computer 2,53,341 7,331 Furniture, fixture & Office Equipment 8,19,488 35,842 Vehicle 8,14,600 10,99,710 Capital WIP 85,54,929 Nil Net Current Assets 2,42,60,075 14,26,630 Total 33,90,59,258 82,78,287 Goodwill 6,51,95,617 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions submitted that the additional evidences filed before the ld.CIT(A) go to the root of the matter and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the additional evidences filed before him. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- i. PCIT vs Daljit singh Sra [ITA No.98/2017] [2017] 80 taxmann.com 271(Punjab & Haryana) ii. Smt. Prabhavati s.Shah vs.CIT[1998] 231 ITR 1(Bombay) iii. Abhay Kumar shroff vs. ITO [1997] 63 ITR 144(Patna) iv.Make My Trip(India) Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT [ITA No.2307 & 4757/Del/2013](ITAT,Del) v. Smt. Avan Gidwani Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5138/M/2015](ITAT,Mum) vi.Mrs. Manisha Bipin Bhinsara vs. ITO [2016] 49 ITR[T] 517(ITAT,Mumbai) vii. Naresh Chauhan v. DCIT[2016] 48 ITR (T) 1 (Chandigarh) viii.DCIT vs. UK Paints (India) Ltd. [2010] 4 ITR(T) 455(Delhi) ix. Sanjay Matai vs. ITO [ITA No.375/Jp/2016] (ITAT,Jaipur) x. Dinesh Khemabhai Patel vs. ITO [ITA No.2131/Mum/2019](ITAT, Mum) 9. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has to pass a speaking order while deciding the appeal and since in the instant case, he has passed a ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue to the assets which already exists as block of asset in transferor company book on which the transferor company has already claimed depreciation and has ascertained WDV. It is not at all permitted by the I.T. Act, as it is clearly covered by the following relevant sections. i. Section 43( 1) Explanation.3 ii. Section 43(6) Definition of WDV (Especially Clause 'C') iii. Section 32(1) Provisio-5 iv. Section 170(2) 10.2 So far as the plea of remanding the matter back to A.O is concerned, he submitted that the same cannot be accepted, on the basis that A.Y.2008-09 is pending before CIT(A). He submitted that it has no bearing with present case since no valuation report is required to ascertain the new value to the block of assets. other than the value present in the books of accounts of transferor company and whole argument of assessee is based on the valuation report before the lower authority in each A. Y. which cannot be justified as per Income Tax Act-1961 (relevant section mentioned supra) and as per accounting standard. Therefore, the case of the assessee may be decided on merit without remanding back to Assessing officer 11. We have heard the rival argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also keep in mind how the valuation report dated 02.07.2007 was prepared when the separate business Transfer Agreements are dated 16.05.2007 and therefore, whether such valuation report is a colourable device/sham instrument and self serving document. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.165/Hyd/2022 for AY 2013-14 13. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer ("the AO") as upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('"NFAC") vide order dated 13.12.2021 and also the addition made therein is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and deleted. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/NFAC has erred in law and on facts, in making and upholding addition of Rs.1,08,40,719/- The said addition is illegal and bad in law and is liable to be set aside and deleted. 3. That, in view of the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 and also the addition made therein is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and deleted. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/NFAC has erred in law and on facts, in making and upholding addition of Rs.94,12,236/- .The said addition is illegal and bad in law and is liable to be set aside and deleted. 3. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the said depreciation as claimed by the Assessee is justified and as such allowable under the provisions of the Act. 4. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC has erred in not admitting the application for additional evidence as filed by the Assessee under Rule 46A. As such the said rejection by the NFAC is illegal and bad in law. 5. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not appreciating that the application for additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has a direct bearing on the outcome of the present proceedings. Hence, in the interest of justice, the application for additional evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
