M/s Jet Age Securities Pvt Ltd, Kolkata V. Addl C..I.T. Rg - 7,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 637/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 63723514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJOY KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KATARUKA
• Section: 263; 2; 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 637/KOL./ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 637/KOL./ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 M/S. JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,.............. ......APPELLANT 804, SUBHAM BUILDING, 1, SAROJINI NAIDU SARANI, KOLKATA-700 017 [PAN :AABCJ 0933 R] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,............ ...........RESPONDENT RANGE-7, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MANOJ KATARUKA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI AJOY KUMAR SINGH, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 16, 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 18, 2014 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. CIT- III/DC(HQ)- 3/KOL/263/2012-13/7933 DATED 28.02.2013 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI MANOJ KATARUKA, ADVOCATE, REPRESENTED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI AJOY KUMAR SINGH, LD. CIT, D.R., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE LD. CI T HAD INVOKED HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED I.T.A. NO. 637/KOL./ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 2 OF 3 UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 17.09.2010 ON THE GROUND TH AT WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, THE PROVISIONS OF R ULE 8D HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED. LD. A.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 17.09.2010 WHEREIN IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE A FRESH COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. THE COMPUTATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WAS SHOWN AT PAGE 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8 D HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY APPLIED WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A .R. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE 263 ORDER HA S BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 16.12.2013 WHEREIN THE ONLY DI FFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMPUTATION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONSEQU ENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD ITEM BEING AN AMO UNT EQUAL TO HALF PERCENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. IT W AS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE CONSEQUEN TIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT AND THE SAME IS PENDING FOR DISP OSAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS TAKEN THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT, THE INCOME FROM WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 MAY BE QUASHED. 4. IN REPLY, LD. CIT, D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VARIATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A C LEARLY SHOWED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 HAD BEEN RIGHTLY INVO KED BY THE LD. CIT. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT. I.T.A. NO. 637/KOL./ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED IN RESP ECT OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND ALSO AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID CONSEQU ENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ISSUE IS ONLY IN RELATION TO THE COMP UTATION OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT, THE INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT FORM ANY PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 HAS BECO ME INFRUCTUOUS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA GEORGE MATHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JU DICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 18 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., 804, SUBHAM BUILDING, 1, SAROJINI NAIDU SARANI, KOLKATA-700 017 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-7, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.