M/s. Manohar Textiles, Karur V. DCIT, Trichy

ITA 420/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4857 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 420/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. MANOHAR TEXTILES, NO.17-A, PUGALUR ROAD, KARUR 639 001. PAN AABFM 1188 L VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. RANGE-II, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S HRI QUADIR HOSEYN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B.SEKARAN, CIT-DR O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2004-05. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) A T TIRUCHIRAPALLI DATED 15.1.2010. IT ARISES OUT OF T HE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L READ AS BELOW : ITA 420/10 :- 2 -: I. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO SEE THAT THE PAYMENT TO ESI IS NOT PENALTY AS SAID BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE FIRST TIME THE DEMAND R AISED ON 28.01.2003 AND IMMEDIATELY THE APPELLANT PAID TH E AMOUNT. II. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT SE E THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED IN RESPECT OF IN TEREST OFFERED AND INTEREST ASSESSED. THIS INTEREST MENTI ONED IN FORM 16 WAS NOT CORRECT. IN SOME CASES THE INTE REST RECEIVED WAS TWICE THE CORRECT INTEREST; SOME CASES THE INTEREST PAID BY BANK DUE TO PREMATURE CLOSURE WAS WRONGLY TAKEN AS INTEREST TILL MATURITY. THE MISTA KES WERE DUE TO SYSTEMS. III. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80HHC REGARDING DEPB RECEIVABLE SINCE THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT INCLUDES THE DEPB RECEIVABLE. THE ABOVE METHOD WAS FOLLOWED EVEN IN EARLIER YEARS. 3. IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE D ETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMIN G TO THE ITA 420/10 :- 3 -: RESPECTIVE FACTUAL CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THIS CASE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING, ON THURSDAY, THE 16 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH JUNE, 2011 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR