Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8222 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
9 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
19-01-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
31-03-2015
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.662/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1) CHENNAI-34. VS M/S. OLAM INFORMATION SERVICES P.LTD. ASCENDAS IT PARTK, ZENITH BUILDING, PHASE III, UNIT NO.2 & 3, 12 TH FLOOR, CSIR ROAD, TARAMANI,CHENNAI-113. PAN:AAACO9506E ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. P.B.SEKARAN, CIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. ROOPESH RAO, C.A /DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH JANUARY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH JANUARY, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE , AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, CHENNAI DAT ED 30.01.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 92CA(3) 144C(5) OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTI ON OF THE DRP DATED 26.11.2014 IN F.NO.DRP/CHE/11/2014-15. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIM ITATION OF 57 DAYS. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THAT D UE TO DISLOCATION OF RECORDS OF THIS CASE THERE WAS A DE LAY IN FILING OF APPEAL THEREFORE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . WE ARE 2 ITA NO.662/MDS/2015 SATISFIED THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND ADMITTED THE SAME . 3. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APP EAL IS AS UNDER:- THE HONBLE DRP OUGHT NOT TO HAVE GIVEN DIRECTION TO THE TPO TO CONSIDER THE BANK CHARGES AS OPERATING COST WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE NATURE O F THE SAID CHARGES BECAUSE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HUGE LOANS, ADVANCES AND INVESTMENT RELATED TRANSACTIONS ARE THERE IN THE SAID COMPARABLE. 4. AT THE OUTSET LEARNED DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT THE BANK CHARGES ATTRIBUTABLE FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENTS M AY BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE OPERATI NG COST AND THE BANK CHARGES ATTRIBUTABLE IN THE REVENUE F IELD MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE COMPUTING THE OPE RATION COST. 5. LEARNED A.R. ARGUED BY STATING THAT ALL THE BANK CHARGES WERE ATTRIBUTABLE AND FALLS IN THE REVENUE FIELD SINCE NONE OF THE BANK CHARGES WAS ATTRIBUTABLE FOR CAPIT AL INVESTMENTS. HENCE HE PLEADED THAT SUCH EXERCISE MA Y BE 3 ITA NO.662/MDS/2015 NOT WARRANTED. HOWEVER, HE MAGNANIMOUSLY AGREED FOR THE MATTER TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED DR P TO VERIFY THE ISSUE AS PRAYED BY THE LEARNED D.R. ACCORDINGLY , WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED DRP FOR SUCH VERIFICATION AND ALSO HEREBY DIRECT THE REVEN UE TO DETERMINE THE OPERATING COST BY EXCLUDING THE BAN K CHARGES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CAPITAL INVESTMENTS OR THAT FALLS I N THE CAPITAL FIELD AND ONLY TO INCLUDE THE BANK CHARGES WHICH FA LLS IN REVENUE FIELD. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 19 TH JANUARY, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .
