KANTILAL CHHOTALAL, MUMBAI V. DCIT 16(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5596/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4531 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIMAL M PARIKH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Revised return

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN , AM AND AMARJIT SINGH , JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 5596 / MUM/ 201 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 200 8 - 09 ) MESSRS KANTI LAL CHHOTALAL, HERMES HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, 33 - 35, MAMA PARMANAND MARG, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI - 400004 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(3), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD - I, OPP. BHATIA HOSPIAL, MUMBAI - 400007 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : AAD F K2393K / A SSESSEE BY SHRI PARIMAL M PARIKH / RE VENUE BY SHRI GANESH BARE / DATE OF HEARING : 1 2 .1.20 16 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12 .1.2016 / O R D E R P ER B R BASKARAN,AM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 19 - 07 - 2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 1, MADURAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. THE ASS ESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN DENYING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXHIBITION EXPENSES MADE THROUGH REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTU RE, IMPORT EXPORT AND TRADING OF DIAMOND AND JEWELLERY. IT HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,16,548/ - TOWARDS EXHIBITION EXPENSES, BUT OMITTED TO CLAIM THE SAME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE REALISED THE SAID MISTAKE 5596 /MUM/201 3 2 DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME HAD EXPIRED, THE ASSESSEE PUT FORTH THE CLAIM BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE AO, HOWEVER, HELD THAT HE WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD (284 ITR 323). THE LD CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INC OME FOR MAKING ADDITIONAL CLAIM. 3. THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD SAYS THAT THE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY BY FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO H ELD THAT ITS ORDER DOES NOT IMPINGE THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL CLAIMS. FURTHER THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHARE HOLDERS (P) LTD (208 TAXMAN 498) THAT ADDITIONAL CLAIMS CAN BE ADMITTED AT THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXHIBITION EXPENSES MAY BE ADMITTED, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THIS ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF TH E AO FOR EXAMINING THE CLAIM, THE LD A.R OBJECTED TO THE SAME BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY EXAMINED THE SAME AND HENCE IT CAN BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL DETAILS RELATING TO EXHIB ITION EXPENSES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE SAME. 5. HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAID CONTENTIONS OF LD A.R. THE AO HAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER T HAT HE WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO GRANT RELIEF IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD (SUPRA), MEANING THEREBY, THE 5596 /MUM/201 3 3 QUESTION OF EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARISE AT ALL, WHEN THE AO DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE SAME. SINCE THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND ON THIS ISSUE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THIS AMOUNT AS INCOME IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR. IN OUR VIEW, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN OFFERING THE AMOUNT OF EXHIBITION EXPENSES AS INCOME IN THE SU CCEEDING YEAR MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, WHO WILL CONSIDER THE SAME IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 12TH JAN UARY , 2016 . 12 TH JANUARY, 2016 SD SD ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICI AL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 12TH JANUARY, 201 6 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS 5596 /MUM/201 3 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RE SPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI