CIBA INDIA LTD ( THROUGH THEIR SUCCESORS BASF INDIA LTD), MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT CIR 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 759/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3442 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 43B; 234B; 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 CIBA INDIA LIMITED (THROUGH THEIR SUCCESSORS BASF INDIA LTD.), 1 ST FLOOR, VIBGYOR TOWERS, UNIT NO.101, PLOT NO.C-62, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN NO. AACCR3698A ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) / ASSESSEE BY SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL / REVENUE BY SHRI V.K. AGARWAL-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18/05/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 18/05/2016 ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/09/2011 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE FIRST GROUND PERTAINS TO UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.33,52,540/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. DURING HEARING, SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) BY ORDER DATED 20/02/2015 (ITA NO.9128/MUM/2010), FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVI TED TO PAGE-4, PARA-6 OF THE ORDER BY CLAIMING THAT THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS CONSENTED TO BE C ORRECT BY SHRI V.K. AGARWAL, LD. DR. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PO RTION ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 3 FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 20/02/2015 FOR READ Y REFERENCE:- 3. THE GROUND NO.1(A) IS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE AO) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SUFFIC IENT EXEMPT INCOME. HE THEREFORE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U NDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE DRP ALSO DIRECTED THE AO TO C OMPUTE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PROVISION OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS ON T HIS ISSUE. IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOY CE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D R.W.S. 14A(2) IS NOT AR BITRARY OR UNREASONABLE BUT CAN BE APPLIED ONLY IF THE ASSESSE E'S METHOD IS NOT SATISFACTORY. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HEL D THAT RULE 8D IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE AND APPLIES FROM A.Y. 2008- 09. FOR THE YEARS FOR WHICH RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE AND I N THE EVENT OF THAT THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION/WORKING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, DISALLOW ANCE UNDER SECTION 14A HAS TO BE MADE ON A REASONABLE BA SIS. ALMOST SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY HON'BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 'MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. & OTHERS' VS. CIT (247 ITR 162). 5. IT MAY BE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE MAKING ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 4 INVESTMENTS FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS ALSO N OT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY LESS OR NOT IN PROPORTION TO THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS PURPOSE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE DIFFERENT COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAVE OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CASES CERTAIN P ERCENTAGE OF EXEMPT INCOME CAN CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE ESTIMA TE FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE FOR THE YEARS EARLIER TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. 'GODREJ AGROVET LTD.' (ITA NO.934/2011) DECIDED ON 08.01.13 HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DIREC TING THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 2% OF THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE STRAIGHTWAY APPLICATIO N OF RULE 8D IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OUR VIEW, THE EXPENSE S EQUAL TO 4% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE W OULD CONSTITUTE BE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE AND THE SAME IS RESTRICTED TO THAT EXTENT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 2.2. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCL USION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFO RESAID ORDER DATED 20/02/2015, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND AN ALYZED, ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 5 WE FIND THAT CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTAN CES AND THE FACTS, THE EXPENSES EQUAL TO 4% OF THE EXEMPT I NCOME, EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS HELD TO BE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTE D TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID ORDER, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS PART LY ALLOWED. 3. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,10,08,937/- TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK U/S 145A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT IN RESPECT OF GOODS OTHER THAN CAPITAL GOODS. THE CRUX OF ARGU MENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO COVE RED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20/02/2015 . IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY F OLLOWED THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS CONS ENTED TO BE CORRECT BY THE LD. DR. 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PO RTION FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20/0 2/2015 FOR READY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 6 9. VIDE GROUND NO.2(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ADDITION OF RS.14,728,838/- TO THE VALUE OF THE CLO SING STOCK UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT AND SERVICE TAX CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY, VIDE GROUND NO.2(B), HAS CONTENDED THAT IF THE ABOVE AMO UNT IS TO BE ADDED TO THE CLOSING STOCK, THE AO OUGHT TO H AVE ADDED RS.11,801,670/- TO THE OPENING STOCK ON ACCOU NT OF ADDITION MADE TO CLOSING STOCK FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.12.06. 10. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGITATED SUCH ADD ITIONS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)], IN ITS ORDER IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06, HAS OBSERVED THAT IT HAD BEEN A RECURRING ISSUE FRO M THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 ONWARDS. THE LD. CIT(A), I N VIEW OF THE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE TAKEN IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL CONSI STENCY, HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CENVAT CREDITS ETC. THE REVENUE THOUGH AGITATED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE THE ITAT ON CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES, BUT DID NOT AGITATE THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THUS, HAS BECOME FINAL IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005- 06 AND THE SAME CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN THIS APPEAL. 11. HOWEVER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145A OF THE ACT, THE VALUATION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS AND INV ENTORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' SHALL BE (I) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REG ULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE; AND (II) FURTHER ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ANY TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE (BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED) ACTUALLY PAID OR ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 7 INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BRING THE GOODS TO THE PLACE OF ITS LOCATION AND CONDITION AS ON THE DATE OF VALUAT ION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS.1,00,42,664/- TOWARDS CENVAT AND RS.46,86,174/- TOWARDS SERVICE TAX TO THE CLOSING STOCK OF INVENTO RIES. THE AO HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS.52,33,736/-, BEING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO THE CLOSING STOCK VALUE OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, TO THE OPENING STOCK. T HUS, THE AO HAS MADE A NET ADDITION OF RS.94,95,102/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS FOLLOWI NG EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR ACCOUNTING THE CENVAT AND SERVICE TAX AN D THERE WILL NOT BE ANY TAX IMPLICATION, IF THE INCLUSIVE M ETHOD AS PRESCRIBED U/S 145A OF THE ACT IS FOLLOWED. ALTERNA TIVELY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT ADJUSTED TO THE CLOSI NG STOCK SHOULD BE CORRESPONDINGLY ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N AS EXPENDITURE. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION WAS THA T THE OPENING STOCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCREASED BY A SUM O F RS.11,801,670/-, SINCE THE AO HAS INCREASED THE VAL UE OF CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.2005 WITH THE ABOVE SAID A MOUNT. 13. THE DRP HAS HOWEVER HELD THAT THE OPENING STOCK SHOULD BE INCREASED BY RS.52,33,736/- ONLY, SINCE (THE REM AINING AMOUNT APPARENTLY PERTAIN TO SERVICE TAX) DOES NOT FORM PART OF COST OF GOODS. 14. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE VALUATION OF P URCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS AND INVENTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE A DJUSTED TO INCLUDE ONLY WITH THE AMOUNT OF TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE (BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED) ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED TO BRING THE GOODS TO THE PLACE OF ITS LOCATION AND CONDITION ON THE DATE OF VALUATION. IF THE DRP IS TAKING THE VIEW THAT 'S ERVICE TAX' DOES NOT FORM PART OF COST OF GOODS, APPARENTLY MEA NING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT INCURRED TO BRING THE GOODS TO THE PLACE OF ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 8 ITS LOCATION AND CONDITION ON THE DATE OF VALUATION , THEN THE DRP SHOULD NOT HAVE UPHELD THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.46,86,174/- PERTAINING TO THE SERVICE TAX PORTIO N TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN THE APPROACH OF THE DRP. 15. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE RE IS NO TAX IMPLICATION EVEN IF THE 'INCLUSIVE METHOD' PRES CRIBED IN SEC. 145A OF THE ACT IS FOLLOWED. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED WORKINGS TO SHOW THAT THE 'NET PROFIT ' REMAINED THE SAME UNDER BOTH 'INCLUSIVE METHOD' AND 'EXCLUSIVE METHOD'. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED THE GUIDANCE NOTE ISSUED BY THE ICAI, IT WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABOVE SAID FACT BEFORE THE AO, I.E. , THE ASSESSEE COULD ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE I N THE INCOME UNDER BOTH THE METHODS BY FURNISHING NECESSA RY WORKINGS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THIS FACT. 16. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH THE WORKINGS D ISCUSSED ABOVE, IN OUR VIEW, THE AO SHOULD CONSIDER THE ALTE RNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., TO ADJUST THE OPE NING STOCK WITH THE CORRECT AMOUNT THAT WAS ACTUALLY ADJUSTED IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. WE HAV E ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE THERE WAS CONTRADICTION IN THE STAND OF DRP. IF THE SERVICE TAX IS CONSIDERED TO THE TAX INCURRED IN BRINGING THE GOODS TO THE PRESENT LOCATION AND COND ITION, THEN THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED BOTH IN TH E OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK. OTHERWISE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADJUSTED IN BOTH THE ITEMS. 17. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE AMOUNT ADJUSTED IN THE CLOSING STOCK SHOULD CORRESPONDINGLY BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. WE ARE UNA BLE TO ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 9 AGREE WITH THIS CONTENTION, SINCE THIS CLAIM WOULD NOT FALL EITHER UNDER INCLUSIVE METHOD OR EXCLUSIVE METHOD. HENCE THIS CLAIM WOULD BE AGAINST THE GUIDANCE NOTE ISSUE D BY THE ICAI. 18. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF DRP ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THI S MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSIONS MADE SUPRA. 3.2. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (ORDER DATED 25/11/2010) OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AND EXAMINE , WHETHER, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, WHILE REACHING TO PAR TICULAR CONCLUSION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WE DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND AFTER PROV IDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. THE NEXT GROUND I.E. GROUND NO.3 WITH RESPECT T O ADDITION OF RS.4,52,19,313/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DE TAILS, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, BEFORE US, THEREFORE, WE AF FIRM THE ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 10 STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) AND DECIDE THIS GROUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO MAKING ADDITION OF RS.63,28,864/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BEING PROPO RTIONATE AMOUNT ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT LOWER RATE. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT FOR SHORT DEDUCTION, NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE FOR WHICH HE PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION FROM HONBLE KOLKATA HIG H COURT IN CT VS S.K. TEKRIWAL (2014) 361 ITR 432 (CAL.) AN D THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS CHANDA BHOY AND JASSOBHOI (2012) 17 TAXMANC.OM 158 (MUM.). THIS FAC TUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. 5.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND T HAT SO FAR AS, THE ISSUE OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS IS CONC ERNED, THE LD. DRP HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT PAGE-13, PARA-8 .1 ONWARDS OF THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT LOWER RATE THAN REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HE ALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N OF ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 11 EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF TDS MADE AND DISALLOWED T HE EXPENSES CORRESPONDING TO DEFAULT IN MAKING THE TDS . WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE MUMBA I BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN (2012) 17 TAXMAN.COM 158 (MUM.), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF NON-D EDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BUT NOT LESSOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. IDENTICAL VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF S.K. TEKERIWAL (SUPRA) ORDER DATED 03/1 2/2012. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY DECISION BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. NEXT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,76,961/- U/S 43B IN RESPECT O F MOTIVATOR (RS.21,74,152/-) AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT PRO VISION (RS.7,02,809/-). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE C ONTENDED THAT THERE IS A FACTUAL ERROR IN MAKING THE DISALLO WANCE. THUS, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE AND AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 12 ASSESSEE, DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 7. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO. 6 & 7 WITH RESPECT TO GRANTING CREDIT OF RS.39,14,703/- FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS AGAINST RS.85,05,037/-, CLAIMED IN THE RE VISED RETURN AND THEREBY SHORT CREDIT AND CHARGING INTERE ST U/S 234 AS AGAINST RS.19,338/- IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CO UNSEL CONTENDED THAT THERE IS CALCULATION MISTAKE, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUES T OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS A ND THE ASSERTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES, WE DIRECT THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND AF TER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, CONSEQUENTLY, BOTH THESE GROUN DS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUND NO. 8 IS WITH RESPECT TO CHARGING OF INTEREST OF RS.1,51,95,613/ U/S 234B AS AGAINST RS.1,18,03,380/- IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS CONSEQUE NTIAL ITA NO.759/MUM/2012 CIBA INDIA LTD. 13 IN NATURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 18/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 18/05/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + + , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. + + , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. /01 )2 , + %& %23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 14 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, */& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI