Nidus Advertising and Marketing Pvt Ltd, Chennai V. ITO, Corporate Ward -4(2), Chennai

ITA 99/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0340 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.99/CHNY/2018 ' #$' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S NIDUS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD., 31A, 2 ND FLOOR, 1 ST CROSS STREET, KASTURBA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AAACR 4483 P V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 4(2), CHENNAI. (&'/ APPELLANT) (()&'/ RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SH. T. BANUSEKAR, CA ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT , # * -. / DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2019 /0$ * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.09.2019 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -8, CHENNAI, D ATED 10.11.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF ADVERTISING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE WAS A DI FFERENCE BETWEEN 2 I.T.A. NO.99/CHNY/18 ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE TIMES OF INDIA. AS PER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WAS 47,69,430/-. WHEREAS, AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TIMES OF INDIA, THE AMO UNT WAS 91,08,024/-. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE RE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF 43,38,594/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THE DISCOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE TIMES OF INDIA WAS, IN FACT, PAID TO THE S UNDRY DEBTOR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THIS WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE PREPARING FINANCIALS, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE. ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, APPLYING THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, HE R EJECTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO CONFIR MED THE DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE CAN RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 3. I HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., AD MITTEDLY THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF 43,38,594/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MISTAKE OCCURRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THEREF ORE, IF AT ALL THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT HAS TO B E CLAIMED ONLY IN THE 3 I.T.A. NO.99/CHNY/18 FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE MISTAKE OCCURRED AND NO T DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPECT OF THE DISCOUNT RE CEIVED FROM TIMES OF INDIA, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DISCOUNT HAS TO BE PASSE D ON TO ITS CLIENT, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 RELEVAN T TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IN RESPECT OF THE DISCOUNT RECEIVED FROM TIME OF INDIA AND THE DISCOUNT PAID TO THE SUNDRY DEBTOR, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN GOETZE (I NDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), FOUND THAT UNLESS THE CLAIM IS MADE IN THE RETURN O F INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL CLAIM. THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT VERY CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT IMPUGN THE POWER OF AP PELLATE AUTHORITIES IN ENTERTAINING THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECO NSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF RECONCILIATION TH AT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E MATTER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AND RECONCILIATION, IF ANY, FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER 4 I.T.A. NO.99/CHNY/18 DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFT ER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2019 KRI. * (-34 54$- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT / 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- () /CIT(A)-8, CHENNAI / 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI-4, CHENNAI / 5. 4#7 (- /DR / 6. 8' 9 /GF.