ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT-1, MUMBAI

ITA 2923/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3042 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBACHAN RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR JHA
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 1 , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO.2923/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 M/S. ROSMERTA TE CHNOLOGIES LTD., KEWAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UNIT NO.252/B - WING, 2 ND FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL (W), MUMBAI 400013 / VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, ROOM NO.330, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, NEW MARINE LINES, MUM BAI 400020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCR 2917D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JHA / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUBACHAN RAM, CIT(DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 1 5 .09.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 . 10 .2015 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER O F INCOME TAX - 1 , MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 0 9 . 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD , THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BOND ISSUE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.3.05 CORES AND THE AO HAS ALLOWED 75 % OF THE SAME AND DISALLOWED 25% THEREOF. THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35D OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, TOOK THE 2 2 VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, HE INITIATED THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO DIS ALLOW THE EXPENSES AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 35 D OF THE ACT. 3 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE REVISION ORDER. 4 . ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35D OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF LAW WOULD RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: A) CIT V/S JAWAHAR BHATTACHARJEE (2012) 341 ITR 434 (GAUHATI); AND B) BOOKE BOND INDIA LTD V/S CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) . 5 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 35D OF THE ACT AND HENCE I NCORRECT APPRECIATION OF LAW WOULD RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME . 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16TH OCT, 2015 SD SD (B. R. BASKARAN) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 16TH OCT, 2015 . . ./ SRL 3 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT. REGI STRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI