PRINCE MULTIPLAST P.LTD, V. ITO 7(1)(4),

MA 112/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3507 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU JIT BANGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MRUGAKSHI K JOSHI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.112/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2002/MUM/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) M/S. PRINCE MULTIPLAST PVT. LTD., 21, KALPATARU POINT, KAMINI MARG, SION (EAST), MUMBAI 400 022. PAN: AAACP 9106B ... APPLICANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO.670B, 6 TH FLOOR, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI. .... RESPONDEN T APPLICANT BY : MS.MRUGAKSHI K. JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUJIT BANGAR DATE OF HEARING : 28/08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/08/2015 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU,AM: THE CAPTIONED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEE N PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL DATED 04/03/2015 IN ITA NO.2002/MUM/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2 M.A.NO.112/MUM/2015 2. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS, AS TO WHETHER THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.4 2,25,030/- WITH RESPECT TO THE BANK LOANS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF EQUITY SHARES OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, VIZ. M/S. MER INO HONE PVT. LTD. WAS LIABLE TO BE CAPITALIZED AS PART OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES OR NOT. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 04/03/2015(SU PRA), DISAGREED WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS ASSIGNED IN THE ORDER AND HELD THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE CAPITALIZED AS PA RT OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES. PRESENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT) ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAI N MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD HAS CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 4/3/2015 (SUPRA). 3. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS FOUNDED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS WERE NO T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04/03/2015(SUPRA) REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT WITHI N THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT:- SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES OF A COMPANY AND THERE IS A 3 M.A.NO.112/MUM/2015 DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE SAME, THE INTEREST EXPENDI TURE WAS CAPITALIZED TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION, AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STAN DARDS 13. THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS, HAS BEEN DU LY ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THAT. DURING THE HEARING THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTATIVE, S UBMITTED CASE LAWS HAVING SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WAS DU LY ACCEPTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN Q UOTED IN THE ORDER, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND HAVE NOT B E-EN DIFFERENTIATED. THE HON'BLE MEMBERS OF ITAT ASKED THE DEPARTMENT R EPRESENTATIVE, TO FURNISH ANY CONTRARY DECISION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR A RGUMENT, HOWEVER, THEY WERE UNABLE TO DO SO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN OUR VIEW THE PRESENT APPLICA TION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEYOND THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER ONLY WITH A VIEW TO REMOVING THE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. HOWEVER, WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED BY WAY OF THE PRESENT APP LICATION TANTAMOUNTS TO A REVIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT . AS A CONSEQUENCE, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOV ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING BEREFT OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER SE CTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4 M.A.NO.112/MUM/2015 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH AUGUST, 2015 SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 28/08/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBA I VM , SR. PS