Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 801/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4620 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 801/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 TAMILNADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., NO. 42, THAMBYSAMY ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 10. [PAN : AABCT0551H] VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III (1), CHENNAI 34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. SELVAMOORTHY, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1, COIMBAT ORE DATED 08.01.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 06 DAYS IN FILING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT REQUESTING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. BY REFER RING TO THE CONTENTS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.8 88 80 00 01 11 1/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 2 THEREIN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYE D FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE LD. DR HAS NOT OBJECT TO THE PLEADINGS I N THE CONDONATION PETITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 06 D AYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY HAS DEBITED A SUM OF ` .7.00 CRORES AS GRATUITY FUND VIDE ANNEXURE-D OF AUDI REPORT IN CLAUSE 21(I)(B). IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE AUDIT REPORT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE FILING RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED FROM THE STATEMENT OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISALLOWED A S UM OF ` .4.00 CRORES ONLY. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY OUGHT TO HAVE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE SUM OF ` .7.00 CRORES, BUT HAD ONLY DISALLOWED ` .4.00 CRORES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE REMAINING A MOUNT OF ` .3.00 CRORES WHICH WAS NOT DISALLOWED IN THE STATEM ENT OF INCOME WAS TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY AND ACCORDINGLY, BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PA ID BEFORE THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.8 88 80 00 01 11 1/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 3 DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX AUDITOR, THOUGH ORIGINALLY QUALIFIED THE GRATUITY A LLOWANCE IN TAX AUDIT REPORT DATED 29.09.2008, LATER ON CLEARED THE QUALI FICATION IN THE REVISED REPORT DATED 26.02.2013 AND HE HAS FILED AL L RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E AR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING AFRESH. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS NO SERIOUS OB JECTION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED BASED ON THE AUDIT REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DISALLOWED ONLY ` .4.00 CRORES WITH REGARD TO GRATUITY. IT OUGHT TO HAVE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE SUM OF ` .7.00 CRORES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED REMAINING AMOUNT O F ` .3.00 CRORES BY TREATING IT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND B ROUGHT TO TAX. ON I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.8 88 80 00 01 11 1/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 4 APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY DETAILS. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED DETAILS AND ALSO REVISED REPORT OF THE AUDITOR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE , WE FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PASS ORDER AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 11 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 11.09.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.