ASST CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI V. DEEP DIAMOND INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5888/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92715 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LOVE KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHWAS V MEHENDALE
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D , BENCH MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI SANJAY GARG , J M ./ ITA N O. 5888 / MUM/20 1 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 ) ACIT, RAGE - 8(1), MUMBAI VS. M/S DEEP DIAMOND INDIA LTD., 202, COSMOS COURTS, S.V.ROAD, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI - 400056 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A A C D 1730 D ( / APPELLAN T ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI LOVE KUMAR /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VISHWAS V. MEHENDALE / DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 /0 5 / 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05/06 /20 15 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1 6, MUMBAI , DATED 23 - 7 - 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 IN THE MATTER ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN H EARD AND RECORD PERUSED. IN THIS CASE, THE AO REJECTED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S. 154 DATED 06;01.2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TAX HAS BEEN COMPUTED CORRECTLY ON T HE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FRESH CLAIM FOR CHANG E O F INCOME IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/ S. 154 AS THE SAME IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE LD. AO ALSO NOTED ~AT FRES H CHANGE OF ITA NO. 5888 /1 2 2 RECTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE MADE ONLY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 139(5)OF THE ACT. F OR AY. 2009 - 10, IT HAD FILED E - RETURN DE CLAR ING INCOME OF RS.29,22,194/ - AS UNDER : - PROFIT AFTER TAX AS PER P& L A/C RS.21,43,138/ - ADD: EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L A/ C. CONSIDERED UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME ( CORRECT DESCRIPTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED SEPARATELY) RS.10,42,301 / - LESS: . INCOME CREDITED TO P&L A/ C CONSIDERED UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME RS. 5,250 / - TOTAL GROSS RS.31,80,189/ - ADD: DEPRECIATION CONSIDERED SEPARATELY SINCE THE SAME IS PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTS AS PER THE COMPANY LAW. RS.5,46,545/ - LESS: DEPRECIATION AS PER 32(1)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 RS.8,04,540/ - TAXABLE INCOME RS.29,22,194 IN RETURN IT HAD MISTAKENLY QUOTED PROFIT AFTER TAX AMT I.E RS 21,43,138/ - IN COLUMN PROFIT BEFORE TAX WHICH SHOULD ACTUALLY BE RS 31, 61,399/ - INCLUDING DISALLOWANCE AMT RS 10,18,261/ - . FURTHER IT HAD MISTAKENLY QUOTED 10,42,301 UNDER EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME BUT ACTUALLY IT SHOULD BE NIL. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO HAS QUOTED PROFIT BEFORE TAX AMT CORRECTLY BUT HAVE ADDED BACK RS 10,18,261/ - WHICH IS DISALLOWED EXPENSE ALREADY INCLUDED IN PROFIT BEFORE TAX AGAIN AS OTHER INCOME WHICH IS WRONG. 3. WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN U / S. 143(1) BY THE CPC BANGALORE, THE UNIT A DDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,18,2 61 / - WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE ITA NO. 5888 /1 2 3 TOTAL OF RS.10,42,301/ - AND WRONGLY TO BE SHOWN UNDER THE OTHER HEADS OF INCOME. THE CORRECT ADDITION AS PER THE RETURN SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE DISALLOWABLE ITEMS OF EXPENSES CONSIDERED SEPARATELY RS.10,42,301 / - AS UNDER: PROV ISION FOR INCOME TAX & FBT RS. 9,20,000/- DEFERRED TAX RS. 79,721/- LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS RS. 18,540/- TOTAL RS. 10,18,261/ - 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE E - FILED RETURN AND CORRECT THE MISTAK E POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT CPC BANGALORE ITSELF VIDE ORDER DATED 5 - 6 - 2012 HAS ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, MEANING THEREBY MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN RECTIFIED, THEREFORE, APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE HAS BECOME INFRUCTOUS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN RECTIFIED BY CPC BANGALORE, WHO PROCESSED ASSESSEES RETURN. FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS APPARENT MISTAKE, ACCOR DINGLY, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE E - RETURN AND CORRECT THE MISTAKE . 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 05/06 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( SANJAY GARG ) ( . . ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 05/06 /201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS ITA NO. 5888 /1 2 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBA I 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//