GANESH POLYCHEM LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO RG 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3270/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3676 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIKANT MAMDEO
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVIN M DEDHIA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3270 /MUM./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 10 ) GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 2 ND FLOOR, UDYOG KSHETRA MULUND, GOREGAON LINK ROAD MUMBAI 400 080 PAN AABCG6160B . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 10(3)(1), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHAVIN M. DEDHIA REVENUE BY : SHRI SHRIKANT MAMDEO DATE OF HEARING 06 . 01 .201 6 DATE OF ORDER 06.01.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY , J.M. INSTANT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17 TH JANUARY 2014, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 22, MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10. 2. APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S TIME BARRED BY 19 DAYS. ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION ACCOMPANIED BY AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. ON A PERUSAL OF THE PETITION AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUS E FOR NOT GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 2 FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERIT. 3. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 22 IS BAD IN LA W AND ON FACTS. 2. RE: ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION BEFORE ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10B: 2.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE OF ADJU STMENT/SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION OF NON ELIGIBLE UNIT AGAINST PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S LOB AND STATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE SET OFF WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 1013, HENCE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 3. RE: REALLOCATION OF SALARY OF RS. 10,88,678/ - ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER FOR COMPUTING PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B: 3.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION REGARDING REALLOCATION OF SALARY OF RS 10,88,678/ - ON TURNOVER BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CORRECTLY ALLOCATED SALARY OF ACTUAL BASIS. 4. RE: NON - CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF AP PEAL IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS 1,17, 254/ - INCLUDED TWICE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME: 4.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,17,254/ - INCLUDED TWICE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. 4. GROUNDS NO.1 AND 5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 3 5. IN GROUNDS NO.2 AND 2.1, ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN ADJUSTING THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AND DEPRECIATION BEFORE ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ). 6. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE A COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CHEMICALS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF TH E ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE VERIFYING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B, NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TWO MANUFACTURING UNITS I.E., ONE AT VAPI WHICH IS AN ELIGIBLE UNIT UNDER SECTION 10B AND ANOTHER UN IT AT DOMBIVALI, WHICH IS A NON ELIGIBLE UNIT. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT AT VAPI, ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED NET BUSINESS INCOME OF ` 8,93,29,055, AND IN RESPECT OF NON ELIGIBLE UNIT AT DOMBIVALI H AS SHOWN NET LOSS OF ` 52,689. FRO M THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ` 7,58,07,650 UNDER SECTION 10B AND THEREAFTER HAS SET OFF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B FROM TOTAL INCOME BEFORE GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 4 SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS IS INCORRECT. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT SIMILAR CLAIM MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 WAS ALSO DISALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT COMPLET ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THOUGH, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SIMILAR CLAIM MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08, BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING DEPARTMENTS APPEAL BUT THE ASSESSING OF FICER OPINING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ULTIMATELY HELD THAT BEFORE ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B, ADJUSTMENT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N AND BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS HAVE TO BE MADE FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. BEING AGGRIEVED , ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSOR BED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS OF NON ELIGIBLE UNIT CANNOT BE SET OFF OF AGAINST THE CURRENT PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT BEFORE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEF ORE ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH SET OFF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS OF NON ELIGIBLE UNIT AGAINST PROFITS OF ELIGIBLE UNIT REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM. GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 5 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED BEFORE US , UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS CANNOT BE SET OFF / ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CURRENT PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT BEFORE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. FOR SUCH PROPOSITION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06 TO 2008 09 AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE DISMISSING DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND 2007 08. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE NO TICE THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS , OBSERVED THAT BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS HAS TO BE SET OFF BEFORE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B BUT WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAC T HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH ADJUSTMENT / SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS. HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06 TO 2008 09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHICH WERE PLACED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL I N THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE NOTICE THAT THE GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 6 TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENT IN ITS VIEW THAT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF NON ELIGIBLE UNIT CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE UNIT WHILE COMP UTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B . MOREOVER, THE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND 2007 08 IN ITA NO.2083 OF 2012 AND 2301 OF 2011 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SET OFF / ADJUSTMENT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HOLDING THAT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWAR D LOSS OF NON ELIGIBLE UNIT CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE UNIT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED. 11. IN GROUNDS NO.3 AND 3.1, ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DE CISION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES IN RE AL LOCATING SALARY EXPENDITURE OF ` 10,88,678, WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B. GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 7 12. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE VERIFYING THE PROFIT & LOS S ACCOUNT NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED SALARY EXPENDITURE OF ` 10,88,678 ONLY TO THE NON ELIGIBLE UNIT AT DOMBIVALI WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , SHOULD HAVE BEEN AL LOCATED TO BOTH ELIGIBLE AND NON ELIGIBLE UNIT ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER . ACCORDINGLY, HE RE AL LOCATED THE SALARY EXPENDITURE BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH RE AL LOCATION OF SALARY EXPENDITURE, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 13. B EFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, ASSESSEE PLEADED , AS IT IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR BOTH THE UNITS AND EXPENDITURE S ALSO ARE BIFURCATED, ACCORDINGLY, THE SALARY EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF NON ELIGIBLE UNIT (DOMBIVILI UNIT) CANNOT BE RE ALLOCATED TO BOTH THE UNITS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, NOTICED THAT AS PER SCHEDULE 11 OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD MANUFACTURING AND OTHER EXPENDITURE WAGES, SALARY AND BONUS HAV E BEEN ALLOCATED SEPARATELY TO THE ELIGIBLE UNIT AS WELL AS NON ELIGIBLE U NIT. WHEREAS, UNDER SCHEDULE 12 TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OFFICE ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURE CONSISTING OF SALARY EXPENDITURE OF ` 10,88,678, HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOCATED TO THE NON EL IGIBLE (DOMBIVALI ) UNIT WITHOUT ALLOCATING ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER THE SAID HEAD TO THE GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 8 ELIGIBLE (VAPI UNIT). THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT WHEN BOTH THE UNITS HAVE SHOWN CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL, PACKING MATERIAL AS WELL AS SALES TURNO VER AT A SUBSTANTIAL LY HIGH FIGURE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT NO EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE CONSISTING OF SALARY EXPENDITURE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE ELIGIBLE ( VAPI ) UNIT. HE OBSERVED , WITHOUT ADMINISTRATIVE STAF F, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURES UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. HE HELD , WHEN SUCH HUGE TURNOVER IS REPORTED BY BOTH THE UNITS, THERE IS NEED FOR MATCHING STAFF TO CARRY OUT VARIOUS ADMINISTRATION AND OTH ER RELATED WORKS. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RE ALLOCATING THE SALARY EXPENDITURE TO BOTH THE UNITS ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. 14. LEARNED COUNSEL REITERATING THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED , AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR BOTH THE UNITS AND ALLOCATED EXPENDITURE ON ACTUAL BASIS, THERE IS NO REASON FOR RE ALLOCATING THE SALARY EXPENDITURE RELATING TO DOMBAVILI UNIT. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO SCHEDULES 11 AND 12 OF T HE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED , THE OBSERVATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES TO THE EFFECT THAT NO SALARY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ELIGIBLE (VAPI ) UNIT IS NOT CORRECT AS SALARY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE ELIGIBLE GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 9 (VAPI ) U N IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD PERSONNEL COST AS APPEARING IN SCHEDULE 11 TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND FORMS PART OF THE AMOUNT OF ` 67,57,752, SHOWN AS WAGES, SALARY AND BONUS. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED , THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE DEPARTMENTAL A UTHORITIES THAT SALARY EXPENDITURE HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN SHOWN IN RESPECT OF VAPI UNIT IS NOT CORRECT. 15. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES AND PERUS ED OF THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. A S COULD BE SEEN FROM SCHEDULE 11 TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED ALL DIRECT EXPENDITURE RELATING TO BOTH THE ELIGIBLE AS WELL AS NON ELIGIBLE UNITS. SIMILARLY, ALL INDIRECT EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO B OTH THE UNITS UNDER SCHEDULE 12 TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED DIRECTED EXPENDITURE RELATING TO WAGES, SALARY AND BONUS TO BOTH ELIGIBLE AND NON ELIGIBLE UNITS , AS FAR AS INDIRECT EXPENDITURE RELATING TO SA LARY AND BONUS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES AS PER SCHEDULE 12 HAS ONLY BEEN ALLOCATED TO THE NON ELIGIBLE UNIT WITHOUT MAKING ANY ALLOCATION TO THE ELIGIBLE UNIT. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL AND PACKING MATERIAL AT A SUBSTANTIAL LY HIGH FIGURE FOR BOTH THE UNITS AND SALES TURNOVER OF GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 10 BOTH THE UNITS ARE ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY HIGH , IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT ASSES SEE WOULD BE INCURRING INDIRECT EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SALARY AND BONUS ONLY IN RESPECT OF NON ELIGIBLE ( DOMBIVALI ) UNIT WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF ELIGIBLE ( VAPI ) UNIT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP TWO UNITS IT IS QUITE NATURAL AND LOGIC AL THAT ASSESSEE MUST BE MAINTAINING ADMINISTRATIVE SET UP FOR BOTH THE UNITS INCURRING SIMILAR EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SALARY AND BONUS IN RESPECT OF VAPI UNIT WHEN ADMITTEDLY, I T MUST HAVE MAINTAINED AN ADMINISTRATIVE SET UP ALSO FOR VAPI UNIT. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT SALARY AND BONUS OF VAPI UNIT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD PERSONNEL COST AS SHOWN IN SCHEDULE 11 , NEITHER APPEAR S TO COMMON SENSE NOR LOG ICAL AS IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW SUCH EXPENDITURE SEPARATELY FOR DOMBIVALI UNIT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF DOMBIVALI UNIT UNDER SCHEDULE 11 LIKE VAPI UNIT. THEREFORE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTR ATE WITH CONVINCING REASON THAT NO INDIRECT EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND BONUS WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF VAPI UNIT, WE UPHOLD THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THAT SALARY EXPENDITURE OF ` 10,88,678, HAS TO BE ALLOCATED TO BOTH THE UNITS ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. THUS, GROUNDS NO.3.1 AND 3.2 ARE DISMISSED. GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 11 16. GROUND NO.4, RELATES TO ASS ESSMENT OF INTEREST INCOME OF ` 1,17,254 TWICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US , ASSESSEE TREATING THE INTERES T INCOME OF ` 1,17,254, AS BUSINESS INCOME, HAS CREDITED IT TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT H AS ASSESSED THE INTEREST INCOME OF ` 1,17,254, UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT TAKING NOT E O F THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CREDITED IT TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS BUSINESS INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST INCOME OF ` 1,17,254, HAS BEEN TAXED TWICE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED , THOUGH THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH AN ADDITIONAL G ROUND HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT HE HAS FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. 18. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE, HENCE, TH ERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST INCOME OF ` 1,17,254, HAS BEEN ASSESS ED TWICE AS PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME HAVING SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 12 ACCOUNT AND AGAIN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS DREW OUR ATTENTION T O SCHEDULE 9 TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT INTEREST INCOME OF ` 1,17,254 WAS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND FORMS PART OF THE OTHER INCOME OF ` 9,78,786, SHOWN IN RESPECT OF GPL UNIT. WITHOUT ENTERING INTO THE CONTROVERSY AS T O WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO ADJUDICATE , LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF DISPUTE, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY ASSESSEES CLAIM AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE SHOULD BEAR IN MIND THAT THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM. THUS, GROUND NO.4, IS ALLOWED. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JANUARY 2016 SD/ - N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 6 TH JANUARY 2016 GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED 13 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI