Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
143019914 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
7 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-09-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
17-09-2013
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
28-02-2006
Judgement Text
, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.1430/MUM/2006 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 . / ITA NO.1537/MUM/2007 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AVENTIS CORPSCIENCE INDIA LTD. (NOW BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD.) BAYER HOUSE, CENTRAL AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI 400076 ! ! ! ! / VS. THE ACIT, CIR. 8(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 # ./ $ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACH 0996F ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &'#% / RESPONDENT ) . / ITA NO.1209/MUM/2006 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 . / ITA NO.1553/MUM/2007 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ACIT, CIR. 8(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 ! ! ! ! / VS. AVENTIS CORPSCIENCE INDIA LTD. (NOW BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD.) BAYER HOUSE, CENTRAL AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI 400076 # ./ $ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACH 0996F ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &'#% / RESPONDENT ) BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAYUR KISNADWALA REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR ! < = / DATE OF HEARING : 17/09/2013 >?' < = / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/09/2013 @ / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARAT E ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-VIII, MUMBAI DATED 6/12/2005 AND 9/11/2006 R ESPECTIVELY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE AS PER FORM NO.36 ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1430/MUM/20 06,A.Y. 2002-03: AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (CIT (A)), YOUR APPELLANT PREFERS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS, WHICH, IT IS PRAYED, MAY BE CONSIDERED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING INTEREST OF RS. 2,47,218/- UNDE R SECTION (U/S) 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (THE ACT). 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,97,18 ,205/- BEING CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR SALE OF MARKETING RIGHT IS A BUSINESS RECEIPT AND HENCE TAXABLE. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT TAXABLE UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 2.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, EVEN IF THE ABO VE AMOUNT IS HELD TO BE TAXABLE, IT SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD OF LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAINS 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN AMOUNT OF RS.24,05,679/- BEI NG THE EXPENSE INCURRED ON SOFTWARE CHARGES (RS. 35,36,537/-) AFTER REDUCING T HE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE (RS. 11,30,858/-) ON SUCH EXPENSE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS / ADVANC ES OF RS. 2,60,08,006/-. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT ACTUALLY SPENT BY THE BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 3 APPELLANT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR OUT OF THE LIABILITY FOR EXPENSE FOR RS. 3,50,04,993/- ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,10,425/- U/S 145A OF THE ACT BEING THE UNUTILIZED MODVAT EXCISE BALANCE ON 31 MARCH 2002. 6. 1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T SUCH ADDITION TO CLOSING STOCK, IF MADE, WOULD MANDATE AN UPWARD REVISION OF THE C OST DURING THE YEAR ALSO, THEREBY MAKING SUCH ADJUSTMENT INCOME NEUTRAL 6.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT / ADDITIONS, IF MADE, WOULD NECESSITATE SIMILAR ADJUSTMENT OF OPENI NG STOCK ON 01.04.2001 ALSO. 6.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT / ADDITION WOULD MANDATE A CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE TO THE OPENING STOCK AS ON 01.04.2002. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO EXPORT I NCENTIVES AND SERVICE CHARGES WHILE CALCULATING THE CLAIM U/S 8OHHC OF THE ACT. ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1537/MUM/20 07,A.Y. 2003-04: AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEANED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (CIT (A)), YOUR APPELLANT PREFERS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS, WHICH, IT IS PRAYED, MAY BE CONSIDERED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEANED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,85,817 (3,76. 682 + 9,135) INCURRED ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 2.L ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS W RITTEN-OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.1 57,881. 2.2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADVANCES WR ITTEN-OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.28,26,001. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEANED CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AC TO ALLOW EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT ACTUALLY SPENT BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR OUT OF THE LIABIL ITY FOR EXPENSE FOR RS. 2,53,18,138/- ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,28,699/ - U/S 145A OF ACT BEING THE UNUTILIZED MODVAT EXCISE BALANCE ON 31ST MARCH 2003 . BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 4 4.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SUCH ADDITION TO CLOSING STOCK, IF MADE, WOULD MANDATE AN UPWARD REVISION OF THE C OST DURING THE YEAR ALSO, THEREBY MAKING SUCH ADJUSTMENT INCOME NEUTRAL 4.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT / ADDITIONS, IF MADE, WOULD NECESSITATE SIMILAR ADJUSTMENT OF OPENI NG STOCK ON 01.04.2002 ALSO. 4.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT / ADDITION WOULD MANDATE A CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE TO THE OPENING STOCK AS ON 01.04.2003 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.66,49,850/- INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENSES ON INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED SHARE CAPITAL AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INSTEAD OF TREATING THE SAME AS ALLOWABLE U/ S35DD OF THE A CT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO EXPORT I NCENTIVES AND SERVICE CHARGES WHILE CALCULATION THE CLAIM U/S 8OHHC OF THE ACT. REVENUES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1209/MUM/200 6,A.Y. 2002-03: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BUILDI NG AMOUNTING TO RS.46,44,903/-. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET THE BUILDING REGISTERED IN ITS NAME EVEN AT THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR AFTER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AND IS SHOWING ADDITIONS TO THE BUILDING AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT IT IS THE EXCLUSIVE OWNER OF THE BUILDING, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF BAD D EBTS WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.42,17,919/- AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3, 02,25,925/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS O F THE CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING CLUB MEMBERSHIP ENTRANCE FEES OF RS.30, 00,000/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,10,425 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNUTILIZED MODVAT CREDIT, WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING DIRECTION TO GIVE RELIEF ON: (A) DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRE D ON TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 5 (B) DEPRECIATION ON SOFTWARE EXPENSES OF RS.8,27,95 6/- (C) DEDUCTION U/S. 35DD IN RESPECT OF AVENTIS LAUN CH EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GONE BY THE COMPUTATION GIVEN ALONGWITH THE RETURNED INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE COMPUTATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME IS RS.31,70,30,239/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS ADOPTED THIS FIGURE OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME BEFORE MAKING DIS ALLOWANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT QUANTIFIED ANY CLAIM O F DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME NOR ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUND TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ITO/AC/DCIT BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GOODS OR ADDED A NEW GROUND WHIC H MAY BE NECESSARY. REVENUES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1553/MUM/200 7,A.Y. 2003-04: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING IS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE SAME POINT AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING EXPENDITURE ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND SOFTWARE PURCHASE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE BY IGNORIN G THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ITSELF INCLUDED COMPUTER SOFTWARE ALONG WITH THE COMPUTER IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS WHICH ITSELF PROVES THAT T HE EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO M AKE THE ADJUSTMENT IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTIONS BOTH IN REGARD TO THE STOCKS, PURCHA SES, SALES, EXCISE DUTY PAYMENTS AND FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENTS RESULT IN AN ADDI TION TO THE INCOME, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ONLY TO THAT EXTENT BY IGNORING THE FA CT THAT THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 HAS NO T BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND FURTHER APPEAL TO HONBLE ITAT IS RE COMMENDED. 2. APART FROM AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DATED 28/04/2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HAS ALSO RAISED ONE MORE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH READ AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD THE FOLLOWING GROUND O F APPEAL: 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S. 234D. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 6 2.1 VIDE TWO SEPARATE LETTERS DATED 12/3/2012 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 02-03 AND 2003-04. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD THE FOLLOWING GR OUND OF APPEAL: 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, AC IT 8(1), IS BAD IN LAW U/S. 120 OF THE ACT AS THE ORDER IS PASSED ON THE ASSESS EE WHICH HAS CEASED TO EXIST. 3. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16/09/20 13. IT WAS CLAIMED BY LD. AR THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BEING LEGAL GROU NDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 GROUND REGARDING INVALID ITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO APPLICATION OF SECTION 120 WAS ADMITTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME. FOR THIS PURPOSE LD. AR SUBMITTED COPY OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 21/08 /2009 IN ITA NO.3553/MUM/2007. THUS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SIMIL AR ORDER MAY BE PASSED IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE YEARS INVOLVED IN THE PRESE NT APPEALS. 3.1 ON THESE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR, IT WAS CONSIDER ED APPROPRIATE THAT LD. DR SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH THE COPY OF AFOREMENTIO NED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO VERIFY SUCH CLAIM OF LD. AR AND THE MATTER WAS A DJOURNED TO 17/9/2013. 3.2 ON 17/09/2013 LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME IN THE MANNER DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF A.Y 1999-2000. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE AFORE MENTIONED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21/8/2009 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - VIII, MUMBAI PASSED ON 07.02.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE RAISED A LEGAL GR OUND CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 148 AS WELL AS ON MERIT REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.2,29,63,580/- TO THE CLOSING STOCK. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 7 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 IS BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE LAST DAY OF HEARING, IT WAS DIRECTED TO GIVE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSE SSMENT, THEREFORE, COPY OF REASONS RECORDED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEA RNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS CHALLENGING REOP ENING ON SOME BASIS, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL ORIGINATES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 16.03.2007. 2. AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE PVT. LTD. (ACSPL) WAS MERGED WITH AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE INDIA LTD. (ACSIL) VIDE COURT ORDER DAT ED 20.09.2001 (ENCLOSED). ACSIL WAS RENAMED BAYPER CROPSCIENCE IN DIA LTD (BCSIL) (COPY OF CHANGE OF NAME ENCLOSED.) BCSIL MERGED WIT H BAYER INDIA LTD. EFFECTIVE 1.4.2003 UNDER A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION P URSUANT TO BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 07.10.2003, (ORDER ENCLOSED) . 3. THE FACT OF MERGER OF ACSPL WITH ACSIL WAS KNOWN TO THE AO., INTER ALIA, VIDE LETTER DATED 24.05.2004. THE SUBSEQUENT MERGER OF ACSIL WITH BAYER INDIA LTD. WAS ALSO INTIMATED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 10.12.2003. 4 HENCE, ON THE PASSING OF THE AMALGAMATION ORDER B Y THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 10.12.2003, ACSIL CEASED TO EXIST AND WAS NO LONGER AN ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, EFFECTIVE THAT DATE, THE AC IT 8(L) CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION. THE JURISDICTION TO COMPLETE ALL PEND ING ASSESSMENTS/MATTERS OF IL VESTED WITH THE AO OF BCSL I.E. ACIT 10(3). 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT TH E REASONS RECORDED IN WRITING REFER TO ACSIL WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT CO NSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN MADE ON ACSPL. CLEARLY, THERE IS A CONTRADICTION. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, YOUR APPELLANT HAS BEEN A DVISED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW U/S 120 OF THE OUR APPELLANT THEREFORE WISHES TO RAISE THE ENCLOSED IO NAL GROUND OF APPEAL. 7. WE SUBMIT THAT VIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, WE HA VE RAISED MERELY A LEGAL ISSUE, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND, ALL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF FACTS AR E REQUIRED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED MAY KINDLY HE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED UPON BY YOUR HONOURS. IT I S A SETTLED POSITION IN BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 8 LAW THAT THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS POWERS TO CONSI DER QUESTIONS OF LAW EMANATING FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUG H NOT RAISED EARLIER. 4.1 APART FROM THE ABOVE LEGAL GROUND, THERE ARE CERTAIN MATERIALS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) ON MERITS. THE L EARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN FACTS RELATED TO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE SUB JECT TO VERIFICATION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ADMITTED. SINCE THESE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US, THE CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SA ME. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECT ION TO DECIDE FIRST THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS AND AFTER DECIDING THE LEGAL GROUND IF IT IS FOUND NECESSARY, THE MATTER M AY BE DECIDED AFRESH ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING OF HEARING T O BOTH THE SIDES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED ..FOR. STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2009. 4.1 IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE PASS SIMILAR ORDER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. WE DIRECT LD. CIT(A) TO FIRST DECIDE THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER DECIDING THE LEGAL GROUND, IF IT IS FOUND NECESSARY, THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES. WE MAY ALSO MENTION HERE THAT THE OTHER AD DITIONAL GROUND IN RESPECT OF INTEREST U/S. 234D TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 2002-03 MAY ALSO BE DECIDED IN THE SIMILAR MANNER. 5. IN THE RESULTS, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ALL THE SE APPEALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/09/2013 @ < >?' A B!C 17/09/2013 ? < D E SD/- SD/- ( / RAJENDRA ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; B! DATED 17/09/2013 BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD. 9 @ @ @ @ < << < &=FG &=FG &=FG &=FG HG'= HG'= HG'= HG'= / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'#% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. I ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. I / CIT 5. GJD &=! , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. DK L / GUARD FILE. @! @! @! @! / BY ORDER, 'G= &= //TRUE COPY// M MM M / N N N N (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . ! . ./ VM , SR. PS
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Startup Fundraising
₹5000
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026