ASST CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI V. ARROW TEXTILE LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3007/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0394 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: BABLU SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) I.T.A. NO. 3007 /MUM/ 2 017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 ) ACIT 1(1)(1) 579, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. VS. M/S. ARROW TEXTILE LTD. 16A, ALI CHAMBERS NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAGCA8907P ASSESSEE BY SHRI BABLU SINGH DEPARTMENT BY MS. N. HEMALATHA DATE OF HEARING 21 . 8 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 . 8 . 201 7 O R D E R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.1.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 2, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2010 - 11. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT REFUND. 3. I HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT INITIALLY BY RAISING DEMAND OF ` 1.64 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSMENT HAS RESULTED IN A REFUND AND ACCORDINGLY FILED A PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT SEEKI NG REFUND. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT DEPRECIATION ON GOOD WILL DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SMIFS SECUR ITIES (CIVIL APPEAL NO.5961 OF 2012 DATED 22 - 08 - 2012) THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING REFUND WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE REASONING M/S. ARROW TEXTILE LTD. 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE A SPECIFIC CLAIM FOR REFUND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 239 OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT IT IS NOT FAIR TO REJECT THE REFUND CLAIM SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED DE MAND BY COMPUTING TAX ON THE RETURNED INCOME INSTEAD OF COMPUTING TAX ON ASSESS ED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT( A). 5. I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE REFUND HAS ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) STATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSE SSEE OR REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF DETERMINES THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE, NORMALLY REFUND CHEQUE IS SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAS PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX, SINCE IT DID NOT CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL. SINCE THE AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM PUT TO HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE REFUND HAS ARISEN. HENCE THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT THE AO W AS NOT RIGHT IN REJECTING REFUND CLAIM ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY I CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RE SULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 . 8 . 201 7. SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 21 / 8 / 20 1 7 M/S. ARROW TEXTILE LTD. 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. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI