Epcos India Private Limited , Kolkata V. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11,Kolkata., Kolkata

ITA 2439/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6575 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GIRI
• Section: 80HHC; 115JB

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2439 / KOL / 20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2001-02 EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD. WBIDS GROWTH CENTRE, KULIA, KANCHRAPARA ROAD, P.O. N.S.SANTATORIUM, KALYANAI, NADIA, WEST BENGAL-741251 [ PAN NO.AAACI 6950 Q ] V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-11, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.C. GIRI, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI .K. SRIHARI, CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 28-02-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20-04-2018 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, KOLKATA DAT ED 18.10.2016. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA U /S 251/147/154/143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.08.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. SHRI S.C. GIRI, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI P.K. SRIHARI, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. ITA NO.2439/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2001-02 EPCOS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-11, K OL. PAGE 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE REVISED GROUNDS OF A PPEAL WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ADDI TIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AT 100% OF EXPORT PROFIT IN COMPUTING BO OK PROFIT, BEING THE SAME WAS THE PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER TH E SAID SECTION IN COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT, INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING THE D EDUCTION TO 80% OF EXPORT PROFIT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 80HHC(IB) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR BY THE AO IN ORDER UNDER SECTION 251/ 147/154/143(1) OF THE ACT DATED 12-08-2014. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AND/OR AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY OR RESCIND THE GROUNDS HEREINABOVE BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. SOLE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY AS SESSEE. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL VIDE LETTER DATED 30.09 .2016 BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GRO UND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED BY LD. CIT(A) IN TERMS OF PRINCIPLES LA ID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RA ISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN ADDITIONAL GROUND BY ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF AJANTA PHARMA LTD. VS. CIT (2010) 194 TAXMAN 358 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT IN COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT THE AMOUNT OF ELIGIB LE PROFIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL AND NOT TO THE EXTENT OF DEDUCTION AS PRESC RIBED IN SEC. 80HHC(IB) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2439/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2001-02 EPCOS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-11, K OL. PAGE 3 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT FOR 6,98,33,000/- ONLY AND THEREFORE THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, LD. DR CO NCEDED THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE HAS NOT BE EN ADJUDICATED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, LD. DR RAISED NO OBJECTION IF TH E MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS PER PROVISION OF LAW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DI SCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1.0 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT) 1T 100% OF EXPORT PROFIT IN COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT, BEING THE S AME WAS THE PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IN CO MPUTING BOOK PROFIT, INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING THE ADDED TO 80% OF EXPORT P ROFIT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID RESTRICTION OF 80% OF EX PORT PROFIT AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 80HHC(IB) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS APPLICABLE IN COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER TH E NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT FOR COMPUTING BOOK PR OFIT, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF AJANTA PHARMA LT D. VS- CIT (2010) 194 TAXMAN 358 (SC) 2.0 THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AND/O R AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY OR RESCIND THE GROUNDS HEREINABOVE BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VI DE LETTER DATED 30.09.2016 AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) O N 18.10.2016 WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS RAISED BY ASS ESSEE. FROM THE READING OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WE NOTE THAT IT IS LEG AL IN NATURE AND ARISING OUT FROM THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NO SEPARATE DETAILS / DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATING THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE A RE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO ADMIT THE ADD ITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PASSING A ITA NO.2439/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2001-02 EPCOS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-11, K OL. PAGE 4 SPEAKING ORDER. HENCE, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 20/ 04/2018 SD/- SD/- ($ &) ( &) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 20 / 04 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD. WBIDS GROWTH CENTR E, KULIA, KANCHRAPARA ROAD, P.O. NS SANATORIUM, KALYANI,NADIA, WEST BENGAL-741 251 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIRCLE-11, 6 TH FL, AYAKAR BHAWA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ. KOL-69 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 $$3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,