Redington (India) Ltd., CHENNAI V. Addl. CIT, CHENNAI

MA 104/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3419 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI
• Keywords: Business expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO.104/MDS/2015 (IN I.T.A. NO.1743/MDS/2011) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD., SPL GUINDY HOUSE, 95, MOUNT ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI - 600 032. PAN : AABCR 0347 P V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY RANGE V, CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVO CATE *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, CIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2015 3'( / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.06.2015. 2. SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, AT PARA 10 OF ITS ORD ER DATED 2 M.P. NO.104/MDS/15 26.06.2015, FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS AN ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THIS VIEW WAS T AKEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. HOWEVER, BY MISTAKE, T HE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRME D. THIS IS ONLY AN ERROR WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SH. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. VER Y FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, IN FACT, BY FOLLOWING ITS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, FOUND THAT THE PAYMENT FOR USE OF TRADEMARK IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. THIS TRIBUNAL , BY MISTAKE, MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, IT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THIS TRIBUNAL, IN RESP ECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,80,98,708/-, WHICH WAS THE PAYMENT MADE TO 3 M.P. NO.104/MDS/15 M/S REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. FOR EXPLOITING THE TRADE MARK, FOUND THAT IT IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THEREFO RE, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AND TH E ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELETED. THIS TRIBUNAL, WHILE FINDING THAT T HE EXPENDITURE IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, THIS IS AN ERROR WHICH HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NE EDS TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.06.2015 IS RECTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:- AT PAGE 5, PARA 10, THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES SHALL BE DELETED FROM 9 TH LINE FROM TOP: IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. INSTEAD, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED: IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIO N. 4 M.P. NO.104/MDS/15 THE OTHER PART OF THE ORDER REMAINS AS SUCH. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. KRI. / *267 87(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 92 /CIT 5. 7: *2 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.