Natesan Synchrocones Pvt. Ltd, Chennai V. ACIT, Corporate circle-4(4), Chennai

ITA 2211/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1070 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SASI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2211/CHNY/2017 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S NATESAN SYNCHROCONES PVT. LTD., C/O SHRI S. SRIDHAR, SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATES, NEW NO.14, OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5, 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AAACN 2399 A V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(4), CHENNAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2018 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -8, CHENNAI, D ATED 21.08.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.2211/CHNY/17 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TA X RULES, 1962. 3. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL SITUATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESS EE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, 2013-14 AND 2012-13, REMA NDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE L D.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO THE MATTER MA Y BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN MAXOP P INVESTMENT LTD. V. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640. REFERRING TO ANOTHER DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 7,12,604/-, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE MAIN ISSUE IS TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT MAY ALSO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HEARD SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSID ERATION FOR THE 3 I.T.A. NO.2211/CHNY/17 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, 2013-14 AND 2012-13. SIN CE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A RE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER THE MAT TER IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. (S UPRA) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFT ER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW COMING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 6. SINCE THE MAIN ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(I) OF THE ACT ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THA T MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE. 4 I.T.A. NO.2211/CHNY/17 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-8, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI-4, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.