ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI V. M/S. NEWAY ENGINEERS MSW PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

MA 1/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had earlier remitted the matter concerning the addition of share application money under section 68 of the Income Tax Act back to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contended that certain grounds related to the addition of \\u20b91.70 crores were not adjudicated. However, the Tribunal found that these issues were already considered and remitted for fresh assessment, leading to the dismissal of the MP.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135267 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member M.P. No.1/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.834/Chny/2020] Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai. Vs. M/s. Neway Engineers MSW Pvt. Ltd., A-2, Ceebros-Tirumala Apartments, 23/36, Venkatraman Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AAECN9510F] (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Y. Sridhar, CA सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition against the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 834/Chny/2020 dated 15.06.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. The ld. DR relied on the petition and submitted that in the appeal filed by the Revenue, ground Nos. 4,4.1, 4.2 relating to ₹.1.70 crores towards addition of share application money has not been adjudicated and prayed that the same may be adjudicated by affording an opportunity of being heard to the Revenue. M.P. No.1/Chny/23 2 3. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in para 3.3 and 6.1, the ground in respect of addition under section 68 of the Act was considered by the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and thus, there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.06.2022 and find that the Tribunal has adjudicated the issue in respect of addition under section 68 of the Act in para 3.3 and 6.1 of the order. The relevant portions of the order are reproduced as under: “3.3 On appeal, with regard to the addition made under section 68 of the Act, after considering the valuation certificate, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Similarly, with regard to the disallowance of expenditure, after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as accepting copy of letter of acceptance from different municipalities and corporations, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that since the assessee has not furnished any piece of evidence before the Assessing Officer against the claims of the assessee, both the additions were made in the assessment order. It was further submission that without obtaining any remand report, after considering fresh evidences, the ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to delete both the additions is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and pleaded that the Assessing Officer should be afforded an opportunity to verify the evidences produced before the ld. CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Since the assessee could not furnish valuation report and other supporting evidences towards share premium of ₹.12,29,20,152/-, the Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company has not earned any revenue from its operations during the assessment year 2016-17 as the assessee company has been incorporated only on 13.05.2015. Since the assessee company has claimed expenditure to the tune of ₹.2,73,97,757/- though there was no income, M.P. No.1/Chny/23 3 the Assessing Officer restricted 1/5 th of the expenditure claimed to the extent of ₹.54,79,551/- and the balance claim of ₹.2,19,18.206/- was disallowed. 6.1 On appeal, with regard to the addition made under section 68 of the Act, after considering the valuation certificate, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Similarly, with regard to the disallowance of expenditure, after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as accepting copy of letter of acceptance from different municipalities and corporations, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. However, without obtaining any remand report, after considering fresh evidences, the ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to delete both the additions is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and verify the fresh evidences produced before the ld. CIT(A) afresh and decide both the issues in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the details before the Assessing Officer for verification relating to both the issues.” In view of the above, it is apparent that the Tribunal, in its order dated 15.06.2022, set aside the entire order of the ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal and accordingly, the MP filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the MP filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17 th February, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 17.02.2023 Vm/- M.P. No.1/Chny/23 4 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.