Shroff Oil Manufaturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Vadodara

ITA 2691/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8010 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHROFF OIL MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD., AT LUNA, TAL. PADRA, DIST. VADODARA PAN: AADCS3111L (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD: 4(1), VADODARA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI MUDIT NAGPAL , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 05 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 06 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APP EAL FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 , ARIS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 2, VADODARA DATED 19 - 07 - 2016 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING OUR RECTIFICATION APPLICATION MADE U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE OCCURRED WHILE DRAFTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PROCESSING FEE OF RS.171450.00 AND FRANKING CHARGES OF RS.1012 20.00. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BY MISTAKE, DISALLOWANCE OF PROCESSING FEE OF RS.171450.00 WAS ONLY MENTIONED, IN STEAD OF MENTIONING DISALLOWANCE OF PROCESSING FEE OF RS.171450.00 AND DISALLOWANCE OF FRANKING CHARGES OF RS.101220.00 HE OUGHT TO HAVE ACCE PTED THE SAID RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL, IT TRANSPIRES THA T APPELLANT INTENDS TO AGITATE ON BOTH THE COUNTS, ADDITION OF RS.171450.00 IN RESPECT OF PROCESSING FEE AND ADDITION OF RS. 101220.00 IN RESPECT OF FRANKING CHARGES, THOUGH, IN I T A NO . 269 1 / A HD/20 16 A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 I.T.A NO. 2691 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHROFF OIL MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 2 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1 71450 IN RESPECT OF PROCESSING FEE WAS ON LY MENTIONED BY MISTAKE. 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) AS PER GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF PROCESSING FEE PAID TO HDFC OF RS. 171450/ - . THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROCESSING FEE PAID TO HDFC OF RS.171450.00 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT INCURRED FOR, THE PU RPOSE OF BUSINESS. HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SAME AS PROCESSING FEE PAID TO HDFC WAS FOR AVAILING CASH CREDIT FACILITY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY.' THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSSEE BY ST ATING AS UNDER: - 4.4 GROUND NO.4 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,71,450/ - CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TO HDFC BANK FOR PROCESSING FEE OF NEW CC FACILITY. ON EXAMINATION OF DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED, I FIND THAT A CC FACILITY WAS SANC TIONED BY THE HDFC BANK AND AN AMOUNT OF RR. 6 CRORES WAS ALSO DISBURSED. THIS SUM IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK ON 24 - 02 - 2012. HOWEVER, DUE TO CERTAIN PROBLEMS THE LIMIT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE BANK AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT RE - D EPOSITED THE SAME SUM ON 12 - 03 - 2012. THE CHARGES OF THE PROCESSING FEE ARE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT ON 24 - 02 - 2012. THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF HDFC BANK FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE REPLY DATED 19 - 08 - 2015 ALSO GOES TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HA S INCURRED THIS EXPENDITURE. SINCE THE CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT WAS OPENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD AT RS. 1,71,450/ - WAS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISION O F LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,71,450/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 4. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY STATIN G THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 171450/ - FOR PROCESSING FEE AND OTHER DISALLOWANCE OF FRANKLIN CHARGES OF RS. 101220/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE LD. CIT(A) SUITABLY AMEND THE ORDER AND RECTIF Y MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF RECTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.1. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT WAS DULY DECIDED IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS1,71,450/ - BEING THE PROCESSING FEES PAID TO HDFC BANK. SINCE NO GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,01,220/ - BEING FRANKING CHARGES PAID TO HDFC BANK, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENTS OF ANY D ECISION ON THE; SAME DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO - ERROR IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.10.2015 WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S. 154. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARE I.T.A NO. 2691 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHROFF OIL MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 3 DISTINGUISHABLE ON F ACTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED U/S. 154 IS DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,71,450/ - AND RS. 1,01,220/ - AS PROCESSING CHARGES AND FRANKING FEES RESPECTIVELY PAID TO THE HDFC BANK BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROCESSING F EE PAID TO HDC BANK OF RS. 1,71,450/ - .T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA 4.4 OF HIS ORDER DATED 30/10/2015. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OR REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) , THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) . ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT , THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 27 - 06 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 27 /06 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,