APTECH LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6654/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8075 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI AW MS RUTUJA PAWAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 14A; 115JB; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6654 / MUM./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 1 1 ) M/S. APTECH LIMITED A 65, MIDC, MAROL ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 093 PAN AADCA0602L . APPELLANT V/S DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1) , MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.C. TIWARI A/W MS. RUTUJA PAWAR REVENUE BY : RAJESH KUMAR YADAV DATE OF HEARING 09 . 1 0 .201 7 DATE OF ORDER 04.12.2017 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. A FORESAID APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18 TH SEPTEMBER 2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 16, MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. 2 . I N GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 21,96,361 UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) R/W RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 2 M/S. APTECH LIMITED 3 . BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE A COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2010, DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING CARRY FORWARD OF CURRENT YEARS LOSS OF ` 10,81,32,278. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFYING THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE PREV IOUS YEAR FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN EQUITY SHARES OF COMPANY , THE INCOME FROM WHICH WILL NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D SHOULD NO T BE MADE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING ASSETS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE BY STATING THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS. AS FAR AS THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT NETTING OFF HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF RULE 8D WHICH WAS QUANTIFIED AT ` 21,96,361. 4 . WHILE CHALLENGING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT , SINCE , IT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SHARES , DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. AS FAR AS ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENDITURE IS CONCERN ED , IT WAS SUBMITTED , NO SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR INVESTMENT 3 M/S. APTECH LIMITED ACTIVITIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXC L U D E THE INVESTMENT S FROM DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE DIVIDEND INCOME FOR TAXATION. 5 . LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED BEFORE US , IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME BYWAY OF DIVIDEND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A SHOULD BE MADE. 6 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SPECIFIC CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS , IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, IT HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND. IN FACT, THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THIS CONTENTION IN WRITING BEFORE US. ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER OR EVEN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THEM THAT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDERS OF THE 4 M/S. APTECH LIMITED DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D HAS BEEN MADE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INVESTMENT S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF COMPANIES WOULD GIVE RISE TO EXEMPT INCOME. THUS, PRIMA FACIE, ASSESSEES CLAIM / CONTENTION THAT IT HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. THAT BEING THE CASE , FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD. V/S CIT, 378 ITR 33 AND THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS). 8 . IN G ROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED OF ` 22,70,225, ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT. 9 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF ` 22,70,225, TOWARDS PROVISIONS FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN TERMS OF SECTION 43B( F ). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED , SINCE , IT WAS NOT ACTUALLY PAID IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 5 M/S. APTECH LIMITED 10 . T HOUGH, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 11 . T HE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO ALLO W ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACTUAL PAYMENT. 12 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S UPPORTED THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 13 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN, DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED ON THE REASONING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. AS PER SECTION 43B(F) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED TO THE STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2002, ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER IN LIEU OF ANY LEAVE AT THE CREDIT OF HIS EMPLOYEE IS ALLOWABLE IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR , WHEREIN , SUCH AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAID. K EEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY ASSESSEES CLAIM AND ALLOW IT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR , WHEREIN , THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID THE AMOUNT TOWARDS LEAVE ENCASHMENT. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 M/S. APTECH LIMITED 14 . GROUNDS NO.3, 4 AND 5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 15 . BESIDES THE AFORESAID GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: 1. THAT O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF ` 5,95,24,304 IN COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED CREDIT OF TAX OF ` 1,60,00,000, PAID BY THE APPELL ANT ON 31.03.2009, ERRONEOUSLY NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C CORRESPONDING TO THE TAX OF ` 1,60,00,000 PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON 31.0 3.2009, BE DELETED. 16 . ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NO.4 AND 5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 17 . AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , ADJUDICATION OF THESE GROUNDS DO NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION INTO FRESH FACTS AND CAN BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, ADDITIONAL GROUNDS MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 18 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND SUBMITTED, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE 7 M/S. APTECH LIMITED ASSESSEE INVOLVE FACTUAL ISSUES, HENCE, REQUIRES EXAMINATION OF FACTS, THEREFORE, SUCH GROUNDS SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 19 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.1, IS CONCERNED, IT PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED FOR WRITE OFF OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF ` 5,95,24,304. WE F IND FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE AFORESAID AMO UNT OF ` 5,95,24,304, WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 05 AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS THE CONTEN TION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US THAT IN VIEW OF SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN VIJAYA BANK LTD. V/S CIT, [2009] 323 ITR 126 (SC) , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04 05, THOUGH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETE THE ADDITION. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHILE DECIDING THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE DISALLOWANCE / AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING NOTE OF THE EXPLANATION (I) OF SECTION 115JB WHICH SPEAKS OF ADDITION TO THE BOOK PROFIT OF ANY AMOUNT IN THE NATURE OF PROVISIONS MADE FOR MEETING LIABILITIES OTHER THAN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES. THUS, AS COULD B E SEEN, THE ISSUE RAISED BY 8 M/S. APTECH LIMITED THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION INTO FRESH FACTS AND CAN BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION. AS FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM AS IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF PROVISION. HE SUBMITTED, IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTUALLY WRITTEN O FF THE PROVISION. HE SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEREIN , THE AMOUNT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND ALLOW IT IN THE YEAR OF ACTUAL WRITE OFF SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20 . AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED, THE FACTS ARE , THE ASSESSEE ON 31 ST MARCH 2009, PAID AN AMOUNT OF ` 1.60 CRORE THROUGH CHALLAN TOWARDS PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY 2009, STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS WRONGLY PAID TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 AND THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY INTENDED TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WI LL NOT CLAIM CREDIT FOR THE 9 M/S. APTECH LIMITED SAID AMOUNT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CREDIT THE SAID AMOUNT TOWARDS ASSESSEES TAX LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. KEEPING WITH ITS DECLARATION , ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 WITHOUT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE. HOWEVER, WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE AND ADJUSTED IT AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. SINCE , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT OF ` 1.60 CRORE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR DID NOT GIVE CREDIT FOR THE SAID AMOUNT. WHEREAS, WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 15 TH APRIL 2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT OF ` 1.60 CRORE. THUS, THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE WAS NEITH ER CREDITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 NOR IN 2010 11. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 2 ND JANUARY 2013, REQUESTED FOR GIVING CREDIT OF ` 1.60 CRORE TOWARDS TAX LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. ALONG WITH THE SAID APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED INDEMNITY BOND BY DE C L A R ING THAT IT HAD NOT CLAIMED THE CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT OF ` 1.60 CRORE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10. AS IT APPEARS, THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FI LED BY THE 10 M/S. APTECH LIMITED ASSESSEE REMAINED COLD SHELVED AND WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ORDER ARISING OUT OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT DONE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE O RDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2015, HELD THAT THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE CAN ONLY BE CREDITED TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 AND NOT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. THUS, AS A RESULT OF SUCH DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLOWING CRE DIT FOR THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10, THE ASSESSEE BECAME LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 23 4 B AND 234C OF THE ACT FOR SHORT FALL IN PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX. THUS, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE ASSESSEES REQ UEST FOR GIVING CREDIT FOR THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE 22 ND SEPTEMBER 2009. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT TAKEN CARE TO ATLEAST LOOK INTO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, EVEN AFTER THE ASSESSEE F ILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 AGAIN REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW CREDIT FOR TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEAST BOTHERED TO LOOK INTO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. ONLY AFTER THE DI SPOSAL OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED TO CREDIT THE AMOUNT OF ` 1.60 11 M/S. APTECH LIMITED CRORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10. IN THE PROCESS, SIX LONG YEARS HAVE PASSED FROM THE DATE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CREDIT THE TAX PAYMENT OF ` 1.60 CRORE TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. IT IS APPARENT , DUE TO INACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN GIVING CREDIT TO THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C. HAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECIDED ASSESSEES CLAIM M ADE VIDE LETTER DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER 2009, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE TAKEN APPROPRIATE STEPS FOR EITHER PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX F OR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR OR OTHER REMEDIAL MEASURES IN THE MATTER . HOWEVER, SINCE THIS ISSUE IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US, WHILE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING ASSESSEES CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS ALREADY OBSERVED BY US, A PROMPT ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISPOSING OFF ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR GIVING CREDIT TO THE TAX PAID OF ` 1.60 CRORE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 WOULD HAVE SAVED THE ASSESSEE FROM UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THEREFORE, WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST CONSI DER THIS ASPECT. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12 M/S. APTECH LIMITED 21 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 .12.2017 SD/ - G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 04.12.2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI