THE GREEN ENVIRONMENT SERVICES CO. OP. SERVICES LTD. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFCIER
LAWS(IT)-2014-5-73
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 23,2014

The Green Environment Services Co. Op. Services Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Income Tax Offcier Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.R.MEENA,AM - (1.) THE Assessee's appeal is emanating from the order of CIT(A) -XVI, Ahmedabad dated 22.10.2010 for A.Ys. 2005 -06, 2006 -07 & 2007 -08 and order dated 25.10.2011 in A.Y. 2008 -09.
(2.) THESE 4 appeals are heard together and therefore we passing a single order for all the years for the sake of convenience.
(3.) THE effective grounds of Assessee are as under: - 1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by confirming the action of Id. AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and not permissible either in law or on facts. The present proceedings, therefore, are required to be quashed. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of Id. AO in adding entire subsidy amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/ - received from the Govt. of Gujarat in the year under consideration . 3. Both the lower authorities ought to have appreciated that though the Appellant has received entire subsidy in the year under consideration, the same has not been accrued entirely in the year under consideration. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice to above, if the entire amount of subsidy is required to be added in the year of its receipt, the corresponding entire cost of the setting up of solid waste tank may also kindly be allowed in its entirely for the year under consideration. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs. 12,81,768/ - being the proportionate cost of land out of Solid Waste Tank expenses. 6. Alternatively and without prejudice, if a view is taken that the said land expenses of Rs. 12,81,768/ - is a capital expenditure, contribution that the appellant received from its members towards reimbursement of the cost of land has to be treated as capital receipt and the same is required to be excluded from its income. 7. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of Id. AO in invoking provisions of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act and in reducing accumulated amount of member's contribution from the WDV of Plant and Machinery and accordingly erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs.83,48,595/ -proportionately. 8. Alternatively and without prejudice, contributions received during the year under consideration can only be reduced from the WDV of Plant and Machinery and not accumulated balance of member's contribution. 9. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in charging interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act. 11. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts m confirming the action of Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Ita No. 3333/AHD/2010 (for A.Y. 2006 -07) The grounds reads as under: - 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs.6,85,194/ - being the proportionate cost of land out of Solid Waste Tank expenses. 2. Alternatively and without prejudice, if a view is taken that the said land expenses of Rs.6,85,194/ - is a capital expenditure, contribution that the appellant received from its members towards reimbursement of the cost of land has to be treated as capital receipt and the same is required to be excluded from its income. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of Id. AO in invoking provisions of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act and in reducing accumulated amount of member's contribution from the WDV of Plant and Machinery and accordingly erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs.43,39,673/ - proportionately. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice, contributions received during the year under consideration can only be reduced from the WDV of Plant and Machinery and not accumulated balance of member's contribution. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 6. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in charging interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.