, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI .. , . . ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 951/MDS/2014 ' % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S NEXUS ELECTRO STEEL LTD., 202, SHIVALAYA, 16, ETHIRAJ SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 105. PAN : AABCN 4224 H V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. (()/ APPELLANT) (+,()/ RESPONDENT) () - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA +,() - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. RENGARAJ, CIT / - 0 / DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2014 1!& - 0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.02.2015 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING T HE VALIDITY OF THE REVISION ORDER DATED 21.03.2014, PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, CHENNAI AND IT RELAT ES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEA R UNDER 2 I.T.A. NO. 951/MDS/14 CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T 'THE ACT') ON 25.11.2011. THE LD. CIT, ON EXAMINATION OF THE REC ORD, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE FOL LOWING ISSUES:- (A) INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 1.17 CRORES IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO NON-RESIDENTS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ATTRACTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT. (B) OUTSTANDING TDS AMOUNT AS ON THE DATE OF BALANC E SHEET WHICH WOULD ATTRACT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. (C) THE AMOUNT OF ` 33.63 LAKHS HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE EVEN THOUGH THE SAME HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (D) THE A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION FUR NISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) RELAT ING TO EVASION OF CUSTOMS DUTY. (E) BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO EP F / ESI ATTRACTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) READ WITH SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE SAID POINTS , THE LD. CIT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO PASS AN ORDER DE NOVO AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSE SSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFOR E US. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED A CRYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSI NG ANYTHING THEREON. THOUGH THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT VARIOU S ISSUES DEALT 3 I.T.A. NO. 951/MDS/14 WITH BY LD. CIT IN THE REVISION ORDER DO NOT WARRAN T ANY ADDITION, WE NOTICE THAT HE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENT TO SH OW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDEED APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE AB OVE SAID ISSUES AND HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW THEREON. AT THIS JU NCTURE, IT IS PERTINENT TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. V. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN ORDER PASSED WITHO UT APPLICATION OF MIND WOULD MAKE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS ALRE ADY NOTICED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WIT HOUT APPLICATION OF HIS MIND. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR AND HEN CE WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. CIT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 4 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ! ) ( .. ) (S.S. GODARA) (B.R. BASKARAN) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, > /DATED, THE 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO. 951/MDS/14 ? - +'0@A BA&0 /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. +,() /RESPONDENT 3. / C0 /CIT-IV, CHENNAI 5. AD +'0' /DR 6. E% F /GF.