Mcleod & Co. Limited , Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 4(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 504/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6642 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM] I.T.A NO. 504/KOL/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 MC LEOD & CO. LTD. -VS- DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2) ,KOLKATA [PAN: AABCM 7872 L ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SANJAY BHATTACHARYA , FCA FOR THE REVENUE : SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. C IT DATE OF HEARING : 07.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.06.2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, KOLKATA (HE REINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), DT. 01.02.2018 PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LETTING OF PREMISES ON RENT AND RENDERING SERVICES THERETO. THE ISSUES THAT AROSE F ROM MY ADJUDICATION ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING MUNICIPAL TAXES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,77,185/- . 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,77,232/- AS UN-RECONCILED CLOSING BALANCE DUE FROM THE BORMAH JAN TEA CO (1936) LTD. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,30,977/- AS UN-RECONCILED CLOSING BALANCE DUE FROM THE NEW CHUMTA TEA CO. LTD. 2 ITA NO.504/KOL/2018 MCLEOD & CO. LIMITED A.YR .2010-11 2 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT BOTH THE A MOUNTS OF RS. 2,77,232/- AND RS. 3,30,977/- AGGREGATING TO RS. 6,08,209/- WERE A LREADY INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE EARLIER Y EARS IN WHICH THE RELEVANT BILLS HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY O R WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AFTER HEARING MR. S. BHATTACHARYA, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. RANU BISWAS THE LD. CIT DR AND ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, A PERUSAL OF PAPERS ON RECORD AND ORDER O F THE LOWER AUTHORITY BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, I HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF MUNI CIPAL TAXES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES, A COPY OF WHICH WAS ALSO BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES. I HAVE PERUSED THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT, THE MUNICIPAL TAXES WHICH WERE NOT CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND WHI CH WERE PAID DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR HAVE TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS ASSESSMEN T. THE LD. DR POINTS OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF STATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THAT THE MUNICIPAL TAXES PAID WAS RS. 1,33,79,924/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOVERED FROM I TS TENANTS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,14,79,939/- AND THE DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINE THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY IT AND DISPOS E OFF THE CASE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSE. 5. GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 ARE AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF UN-RECONCILIATION CLOSING BALANCES. THE SUBMITS THAT, BOTH M/S D. BOR MAH JAN TEA COMPANY, 1936 AND M/S NEW CHUMTA TEA COMPANY LTD. HAVE NOT ACCEPTED T HE BILLS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO.504/KOL/2018 MCLEOD & CO. LIMITED A.YR .2010-11 3 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE INCOME FROM SUCH BILLS, IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THEY WERE RAISED ON THESE COMPANIES AND HENCE BRINGING T O TAX SUCH AMOUNTS ON RECEIPT OF THE BILLS IS A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS EXAMINATION. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED THESE AMOUNTS TO T AX BY WAY OF INCLUDING THERE AMOUNTS AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, NO ADDIT ION CAN BE MADE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. HENCE GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 NEED NOT BE SEPARATELY ADJU DICATED AS THEY ARE CONNECTED WITH THE EARLIER GROUNDS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27.06.2018 SD/- [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27.06.2018 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. MCLEOD & CO. LIMITED, MCLEOD HOUSE, 3, NETAJI SU BHAS ROAD, KOLKATA-700001. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQU ARE, KOLKATA-700069. 3..C.I.T.(A)- , KOLKATA 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S