Shibir India Limited, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1082/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4433 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM KR MONDAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1082/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 SHIBIR INDIA LTD. C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 [ PAN NO.AAHCS 5421K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUAE, KOLKATA-700 069 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SRI GAUTAM KR. MONDAL, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 21-11-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27-11-2019 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 19.03.2018, PASSED IN CASE NO.832/CIT(A)-1/WARD-1(4)/2015-16, INVOLVIN G PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES AT THE OUTSET THAT ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE HAD RAISED HIS SUBSTANTIVE GROUND NO. 2(A) & (B) CHALLENGING CORRECTNESS OF SEC.115JB BOOK PROFIT ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX ACT AND COMPANIES LA W QUA EXTRA-ORDINARY ITEMS ITA NO.1082/KOL/2018 A.Y.2012-13 SHIBIR INDIA LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(4), KOL. PAGE 2 INCLUDING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT INVOLVING SUMS OF 3,40,855 AND 5,32,514; RESPECTIVELY, THE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CH ALLENGE HAS NOWHERE ADJUDICATED THE SAME. LEARNED AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS AS WELL AS A COMPILATION CHART INDICATING MISTAKES IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER REG ARDING U/S. 14A R.W.S. 8D(II) DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST AND ADMINIS TRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(III) INVOLVING FIGURE(S) OF 30,47,866/- AND 8,50,306/- AS WELL AS COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB REGARDING THE SAID AGGREGATE SUM OF 38,98,573/-. THE SAID CHART FURTHER INDICATES THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE FORME R HEAD OF RULE 8D DISALLOWANCE AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE LATTER ONE ON THE ONE HAND AND H E ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWAN CE IN HIS FINDINGS. 3. COMING TO THE BOOK PROFIT ISSUE, IT EMERGES THAT THE CIT(A) WRONGLY REPRODUCED ASSESSEES GROUND 2(A) & 2(B) IN PAGE 11 OF HIS LOWER APPELLATE ORDER BUT COMMITTED MISTAKE IN INCORPORATING FIGURES OF 30,47,867/- IN PLACE OF 38,98,573/- THAN THE FOREGOING CORRECT SUMS. WE FURTHER FIND TH AT ALTHOUGH THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF, HE ADOPTED THE FORMER FIGURE OF SEC. 14A R. W.S. RULE 8D DISALLOWANCE THAN THE CORRECT ONE OF THE LATTER SUM. COUPLED WITH THIS, T HE ASSESSEES TWIN GROUNDS ON BOTH DEPRECIATION AND PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES ALSO REMAIN UN-ADJUDICATED. THERE IS NO REBUTTAL TO ALL THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS FROM THE REVE NUE SIDE. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL TO RIVAL PLEADINGS. WE HAVE SUFFICIENTLY INDICATED THE FACT NOT ONLY THE CIT(A) HAVING COMMITTED MISTA KES IN ADOPTING CORRECT FIGURES RELATING TO THE TWIN HEAD(S) OF SEC. 14A R.W.S. RUL E 8D DISALLOWANCE THE NORMAL AS WELL AS BOOK PROFIT COMPUTATION BUT ALSO HE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ASSESSEES CORRESPONDING GROUND 2 (A) & 2 (B) PLEADED IN THE L OWER APPEAL. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW. WE MAKE IT CLEAR TH AT LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING AT ASSESSEES BEHEST STATED AT THE BAR TH AT THE TAXPAYER WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION IN CASE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF SEC. 14A R.W.S. 8D ITA NO.1082/KOL/2018 A.Y.2012-13 SHIBIR INDIA LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(4), KOL. PAGE 3 DISALLOWANCE AFRESH AS PER LAW. WE THEREFORE ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES ALL SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/11/2019 SD/- SD/ - ( !) (#$ ') (P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.GODARA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS ( - 27/11/2019 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SHIBIR INDIA LTD. C/O SUBHASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE NO.212, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WD-1(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWR INGHEE SQ. KOL-69 3. + . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . - / CIT (A) 5. / $$+ , + / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 3 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ +,