Earth Movers Consultancy Pvt Ltd., V. DCIT,

ITA 196/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0355 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHOUDHARY ORAON
• Assessee Lawyers: R R MITTAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 196/RAN/2014 (ASST. YEAR : 2009-10) M/S. EARTH MOVERS CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., 25, NEW DEVELOPMENT AREA, GOLMURI, JAMSHEDPUR. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR. PAN NO. AAACE 9345 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.R. MITTAL FCA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI CHOUDHARY ORAON - DR DATE OF HEARING : 28/10/2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/10/2015. O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) JAMSHEDPUR, DA TED 25/03/2014. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT OF RS.11,82,832/- ON ACCOUNT OF VAT PAYMENT. 3 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID VAT OF RS.11,82,832/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AS UNDER:- 2 ITA NO. 196/RAN/2014 26/03/2009 BY CHALLAN NO.4 RS. 3,64,262 30/03/2009 BY CHALLAN NO.2 RS. 3,75,904 31/03/2009 BY CHALLAN NO.80 RS. 4,42,666 RS. 11,82,832/- THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE PAYMENTS WERE NO T MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09, THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WERE SUB SEQUENTLY MADE, BUT THE ASSESSEE BY MISTAKE OMITTED TO CLAIM THE SA ME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESS EE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143( 3) OF THE ACT CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR RS. 11,82,832/- PAYMENT OF VA T BEFORE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT A CCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 284 ITR 323 HAS HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ENTERTAIN CLAIM FOR DEDUCT ION OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. 5. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CO NFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS UNDISPUTE D FACTS ARE THAT THE PAYMENT FOR VAT OF RS. 11,82,832/- FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. THE ONLY REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PAYMENT OF VAT OF RS. RS. 11,82,832/- BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) IS THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN CANNOT BE ALLOWED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A DEDUCTION FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. IN OUR 3 ITA NO. 196/RAN/2014 CONSIDERED VIEW, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) APPLIES TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER, BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND BY ADMITTIN G THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE PAYMENTS FOR VAT WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10, THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE RESTOR E THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER VERIFICATION AS PER LAW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE IS ALS O DIRECTED TO FILE ALL RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS ON WHICH IT WISHES T O RELY UPON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED UPON TO DO . WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 AT RANCHI. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R. 6. GUARD F ILE. BY ORDER 4 ITA NO. 196/RAN/2014 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 28/10/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29/10/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 29/10/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 29/10/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 29/10/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/10/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 29/10/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER