M/s Premier Industries (India) Ltd., Indore V. The ACIT, 1(2), Indore

MA 11/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3195 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N AGRAWAL
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 11/IND/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 395/IND/2010 A.Y. 2007-18 M/S PREMIER INDUSTRIES(INDIA) LTD. INDORE PAN AABCP1890P ::: APPLICANT VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(3), INDORE ::: RESPONDENT APP LIC ANT BY SHRI S.N. AGRAWAL RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 10.7. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 0 . 7 .2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I N 2 ITA NO. 395/IND/2010 THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSDIER GROUND NOS. 3.1 TO 3.3 WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- 3.1 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MAINTAINIGN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,56,000/- @ 12% ON INVESTMENT OF RS.88 LAKHS MADE IN SHARES OF NARMADA SUGAR LTD. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS FO SECTION 14A. 3.2 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MAINTAINIGN DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AS MADE BY THE A.O. RELYING ON PAST YEAR ORDERS EVEN WHEN THE SAID ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OU T OF INTEREST REQUIRES TO BE RESTRICTED AS PER RULE 8 D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 2. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS WERE INADVERTEMENTLY OMITTED TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE, THEREFOR E, PRAYED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED AND THE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO DECID E THE ABOVE GROUNDS AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE GROUND HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT. 4 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAS INADVERTENTLY NOT ADJUDICATED THE ABOVE GROUNDS 3.1 AND 3.2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL . WE, THEREFOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEA RING ONLY ON THESE LIMITED GROUNDS . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JULY, 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 10 JULY, 2015 DN/-1010