Ridhima India Services, , New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

ITO, Ward 33(2) vs. Ridhima India Services Room no.206 B C 161, 4th floor, Hemkunt house C.R.bldg. IP Estate Gautam Nagar New Delhi New Delhi

PAN: AAJFR 6317 G

C.O.No. 96/Del/2013 (In ITA 397/Del/2012) AY: 2008-09

Ridhima India Services vs. ITO, Ward 33(2) New Delhi New Delhi

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Revenue by:- Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.D.R. Assessee by:- None

ORDER

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Revenue and is directed against the order

of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi dt. 20.10.2011 pertaining to the AY

2008-09.

The Cross Objection is filed by the assessee.

2

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice by

registered post at the address given in Form no.36. Under the

circumstances we dispose of the case ex parte on merits qua the assessee.

3. Heard Ld.Sr.D.R. Mr.Vikram Sahay.

4. Ground no.1 is against the First Appellate Authority deleting the

disallowance made by the AO u/s 43B of the Act, for non payment of service

tax amounting to Rs.9,62,674/-.

5. The assessee in this case has not rorted the service tax in question

through its profit and loss account. It accounted for service tax separately

and had shown it as a liability in the balance sheet. Thus admittedly the

assessee has not claimed any deduction towards payment of service tax

during the year. Under these circumstances, the question of disallowance

u/s 43B of the Act does not arise. The First Appellate Authority has rightly

deleted the addition. We uphold the same and dismiss ground no.1 of the

revenue.

6. Ground no.2 is directed against the deletion of an addition of rent of

Rs.1,20,000/- made by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that the premises of the

assessee is not solely and exclusively related to the assessee's business.

The First Appellate Authority has dealt with the issue at para 5.3 of his

order. On perusing the same we find that the First Appellate Authority has

rightly observed that the AO has not conducted any enquiries nor brought

out any material on record in support of his contention that the premises 3

has been used for any other purpose, other than the business of the

assessee. Thus we dismiss ground no.2 of the Revenue.

7. Ground no.3 is against deletion of an addition by the First Appellate

Authority made by the AO on account of depreciation on fixed assets. This

addition was deleted by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the

AO has not conducted any enquiries. We find no infirmity in the same. In

the result this ground of Revenue is dismissed.

8. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

9. The Cross Objection is in support of the order of the First Appellate

Authority. In view of our decision in the appeal of the Revenue, the

assessee's C.O. has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

10. In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed and assessee's C.O. also is

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th May, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(A.T. VARKEY) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: the 20th May, 2015

*manga 4

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

1.Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.Guard File

By Order

Asst. Registrar