9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided to the assessee, who shall not take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for and furnish necessary details and in absence thereby, ld. CIT(A) can decide in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order. Expenses claimed towards service tax penalty the disallowance is confirmed as alleged sum being penalty in nature is not allowable as expenditure u/s. 37. Additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed and the grounds raised on merits are partly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.: 3339/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2023 - Dr. Manish Borad, Hon ble Accountant Member And Shri Manomohan Das, Hon ble Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri. Uttamchand Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai, dated 30.09.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 31.03.2014 framed by ld. JCIT, Range-VII, Chennai. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. For that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax U/s.143(3) is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and/or in excess of / jurisdiction under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income erred in passing an order U/s. 143(3) as he lacked jurisdiction to pass such order in the absence of an order U/s. 120(4)(b) conferring such jurisdiction under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. For that the Notice U/s. 143(2)was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and in the absence of order U/s. 127, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax is without jurisdiction and needs to be squashed under the facts and circumstances of the case 5. For that the assessment proceedings are initiated by one officer and assessment order is passed by another officer is bad in law and illegal under the facts and circumstances of the case The existing ground Nos.2 to 10 may be renumbered as ground Nos. 6 to 14 respectively. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of marketing and commission agent and is an All India Marketing Agent for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raising grounds on merit as well as raising additional grounds challenging validity of the assessment proceedings being bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly made submission regarding the additional ground stating that the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by the ld. ACIT, Business Circle-7, Chennai, but the assessment order is signed by the ld. JCIT, Range-VII, Chennai and there is no order u/s. 120(4)(b) of the Act conferring said jurisdiction from ACIT to JCIT and therefore, the assessment proceedings should be held has invalid and bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. As far as merits of the case are concerned, it is submitted that assessee did not get fair opportunity to plead before the ld. CIT(A) and on most of the issues information was called for at the fag end of completing the assessment proceedings and further, the assessee did not had sufficient opportunity to place the documents before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the order of ld. CIT(A) is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. It was also submitted that the borrowed funds have been consistently taken at 15% in the past and funds are g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, Business Circle-7, Chennai, but the assessment order was finalized by ld. JCIT, Range-VII, Chennai and there being no order u/s. 120(4)(b) of the Act, conferring the jurisdiction from ACIT to JCIT the assessment proceedings are bad in law, we noticed that during the course of hearing ld. DR submitted a copy of notification no. 02/2013-14 dated 26.08.2013 issued by Government of India, Income Tax Department, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, bearing C.No. 7071(Scrutiny)/CIT-VII/2013-14 and the power have been exercised u/s. 120(2) of the Act by way of which Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, Chennai assigned the jurisdiction and assessee s name is appearing in the schedule containing 10 names wherein jurisdiction has been transferred from ACIT , Business Circle-VII, Chennai to JCIT, Business Range-VII, Chennai. Thus, there remains no dispute to the fact that the jurisdiction was transferred from ACIT to JCIT vide order dated 26.08.2013 and therefore, notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act is a valid notice, issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee and similarly the assessment proceedings has also been carried out by the Assessing Officer having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which disputed expenditure is Rs. 75,73,160/-, which have been given to six parties. The assessee is claiming it to be business expenditure and utilized for the purpose of giving gifts and incentives to its distributors as a part of sale promotion scheme and has been consistently carried out in the past also. Further, it was submitted that documentary evidence are not available with them and only few are being called through RTI from the assessment records only. A request was made for providing one more opportunity to explain the genuineness of the said explanation. 14. Similarly, regarding the disallowance of travelling expenses, it is stated that they all have been incurred towards business purpose. However, the ld. AO has observed that the persons who have gone on foreign travel, are not the representatives or employees of the assessee. However, ld Counsel for the assessee again requested for restoring the matter to the lower authorities. 15. Next is the issue of service tax penalty of Rs. 20,702/-, for which the ld. Counsel for the assessee, did not make any specific mention. Therefore, we hold that the alleged sum being penalty in nature is not allowable as expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
