Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0556 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
21-06-2013
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
1999-2000
Appeal Filed On
16-04-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 107/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO. 1289/HYD/2011 A.Y. 1999-2000 THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(2) HYDERABAD VS. M/S. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AAACD 7999Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI SAMPATH RAGHUNATHAN RESPONDENT BY: SRI GOPINATH DATE OF HEARING: 21 .0 6 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 .0 6 .2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE DEPARTM ENT IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.10.2012 IN ITA NO. 1289/HYD/2011. 2. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 ON 31 .12.1999 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 22,78,73,220. ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS. 32,09,12,60 2. THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 AND ASSESSMENT U/S. 143( 3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED WITH THE ADDITION, BEI NG ONE OF THE ADDITIONS, TOWARDS 'DISALLOWANCE OF ADVANCES WRITTE N OFF' AT RS. 89,69,003. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGR IEVED, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS 'WRITTEN OFF OF ADVANCES' AT RS. 89,69,003. THE TRIBUNAL MA NO. 107/HYD/2013 M/S. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. ========================== 2 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 IN ITA NO. 1289/HYD/201 1 DISCUSSED THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE SAID CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE, BUT NOT RECORDED ANY CONCLUSIVE FINDING WITH RESPEC T TO THE ALLOWANCE OF 'WRITE OFF OF ADVANCES'. ACCORDINGLY, THE DR REQUESTED THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS 'W RITTEN OFF OF ADVANCES' AT RS. 89,69,003 BY RECALLING THE TRIBUNA L ORDER IN ITA NO. 1289/HYD/2011. 3. THE LEARNED AR DID NOT RAISE OBJECTION TO THE ARGUM ENT OF THE DR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO CIT(A)'S OBSERVATION IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF AND ADVANCES WR ITTEN OFF. ACCORDING TO THE DR IT IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE CLAIM AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AN D REMITTED THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. NOW THE OBJECTION OF THE DR IS THAT THERE IS NO CATEGORICAL FINDING IN TRIBUNAL ORDER IN RESPECT OF 'ADVANCES WRITE OFF' AND THERE ARE ONLY FINDINGS IN RELATION TO 'BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF'. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IS TO BE READ AS A WHOLE, NOT IN PIECEMEAL. 5. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS THE FINAL F ACT FINDING BODY. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH UNLESS THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL OR HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY RELEVANT MATERIAL OR THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IS PERVERSE IN THE SENSE THAT NO REASONABL E PERSON, ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, COULD H AVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION TO WHICH IT HAS COME. MA NO. 107/HYD/2013 M/S. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. ========================== 3 6. IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINISED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERE LY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL B Y THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON TH E RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGEME NT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TR IBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIA L AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASIS ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LI ABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE. 7. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGEMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WE RE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THA T IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD T HAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RELATION TO 'BAD DEBTS WRITE OFF ' IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO 'ADVANCES WRITE OFF' ALSO. ACCORDING LY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE BOTH THE ISSUES AF RESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER OUR EARLIER DIRECTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, MA BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JUNE, 2013. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 21 ST JUNE, 2013 TPRAO MA NO. 107/HYD/2013 M/S. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. ========================== 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD., 8 - 2 - 337, ROAD NO. 3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 034. 3 . THE CIT(A) - II, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT - I, HYDERABAD. 5 . THE DR ' B ' BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD
Mehul