D.C.I.T.- 9(2), MUMBAI V. HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4866/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 486619914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVIKIRAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND B.R.BHASKARAN (AM ) . . , . . , ./I.T.A. NO.4866/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,9(2), ROOM NO.218,2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEM S PVT LTD., 404-A WING, DELPHI HIRANANDANI GARDEN, POWAI, MUMBAI-400076. ( % / APPELLANT) .. ( &% / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACH3550M % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K RAVIKIRAN &% * /RESPONDENT BY : NONE * - / DATE OF HEARING : 18.2.2014 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.2.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) DATED 10.5.20 12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING HE ADDITION OF RS.45,96,766/- ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE CLAIM OF BONUS EXPENDITURE, WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT IT WAS CLAIMED AS PRE EXISTING LIABILITY WITHOUT ANY MENT ION IN AUDIT REPORT AND FURTHER DISALLOWABLE U/S 43B OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AS NO PROO F OF PAYMENT WAS SUBMITTED 2. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) O N THE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HA VE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR. 3. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ON PERUS AL OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WE OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED IN PARA 6 OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER : I.T.A. NO. 4866/MUM/2012 2 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, AND THE 154 ORDER AND ORDER U/S 143(3) , S.43B CLEARLY STATES THAT CERTAIN DEDUCTION ARE ALLOWED ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMEN T BASIS AND THUS THE BONUS PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON PAYMEN T BASIS IF THE BONUS PAID IS NOT PAID DURING THE YEAR BUT PAID DURING THE SU BSEQUENT YEAR IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF BONUS ON PAYMENT BASIS AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF R ECORD AND OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE 4. LD. DR CONCEDED THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORE D TO AO TO ALLOW CLAIM OF BONUS ON PAYMENT BASIS AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF RE CORD AND AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT AS LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FRO M THE RECORD AND IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER, THE CLAIM BE ALLOWED. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS D ISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST FEBRUARY, 2014 . 1 2 21ST FEBRUARY, 2014 * SD SD ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN ) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: ON THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % / THE APPELLANT 2. &% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 8 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 9 &: , - : , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - : , /ITAT, MUMBAI