AUREOS INDIA ADVISERS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

ITA 9140/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 914019914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYESH I SHAH
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 9140/MUM/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AUREOS INDIA ADVISERS PVT. LTD., 303, VAIBHAV CHAMBERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI 400 051 / VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.455, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAFCA 5909A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI DIVYESH I. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN # $ % / DATE OF HEARING : 01/07//2015 # $ % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/07/2015 / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT I S DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-22, MUMBAI DATED 27/10/2010 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS, BUT ONLY GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 WERE PRESSED AND OTHER GROUNDS WER E NOT PRESSED. THEREFORE, GROUNDS NO.1,4, 5 & 6 ARE DISMISSED BEIN G NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO.2 & 3 READ AS UNDER:. 2.1 HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF INCOME OF RS.14,91,686/- U/S. 2(24)(X) RWS 36(1)(VA) IN RESPE CT OF PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE FOR BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE ES ON THE BASIS THAT . / ITA NO. 9140/MUM/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 2 IT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EMPLOYEES AND THAT THERE WAS DELAY BY ASSESSEE ITSELF IN MAKING APPLICATION FOR PF CODE TO PF ADMINISTRAT ION. 2.2 APPELLANT PRAYS THAT SAID ADDITION BE DELETED. 3.1 HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,00,000/- INCURRED AS PROFESSIONAL FEES BY TREATING THE SAME AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS. 3.2 APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,00,0 00/- LACS BE DELETED. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.2., IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT IMPUGNED PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DU E DATE OF FILING THE RETURN, HENCE, DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR IN V IEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORT , 368 ITR 749. 2.1 IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BO TH THE PARTIES, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING THE R ETURN, THEN DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED AS PER AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORT (SUPRA). THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 3. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THOUGH IN THE COMPUTATION THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT AS REFERRED IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, BUT IN THE L ETTER FILED BEFORE AO DATED 24/08/2009, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGES 48 TO 5 0 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUCH CLAIM WAS RAISED AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN SL. NO.19, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 19. SR.28 DETAILS OF PARTY WISE PROFESSIONAL FEE S ANNEXURE-9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT AMOUNT PAID TO M.P CHITALE & CO. IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSES . / ITA NO. 9140/MUM/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 3 ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED RS.120000 WHILE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ANNEXURE 10 FOR MONTHLY COMMUNICATION EXPENSES. 3.1 HE SUBMITTED THAT AO DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT L D. CIT(A) HAD REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO BUT AO OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AS ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT REQUIRED DETAILS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY L D. AR THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE- ADJUDICATE THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER PROVID ING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD MEET THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THIS ISSUE IS RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE AS PER PROV ISIONS OF LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE D IRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/07/2015 # + , - 01/07/2015 # SD/- SD/- ( . . / B.R.BASKARAN ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; , DATED 01/07/2015 . / ITA NO. 9140/MUM/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. /$ ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. /$ / CIT 5. 01 $23 , % 23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 4 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 0$ $ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . . ./ VM , SR. PS