INDUS CITYSCAPES, CHENNAI V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI

MA 120/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which filed a Miscellaneous Petition (M.P. No. 120/Chny/2022) against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.09.2022. The petition sought to recall the Tribunal's earlier decision, claiming that a specific ground (No. 10) was not adjudicated. However, the Tribunal reviewed its previous decision and confirmed that the ground had indeed been addressed, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134877 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ 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. 120/Chny/2022 [In I.T.A. No.1226/Chny/2018] िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Pvt. Ltd., No. 5-C, EGA Trade Centre, 809, Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [PAN:AABCI2175A] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai. (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 24.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: By means of present Miscellaneous Petition, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1226/Chny/2018 dated 16.09.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. By referring to the petition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that ground No. 10 raised in the main appeal of the assessee has not been adjudicated and prayed for recalling the order of the Tribunal for limited M.P. No.120/Chny/22 2 purpose to adjudicate the same. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the Tribunal has adjudicated the above ground in its order and thus, there is no mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the order of the Tribunal dated 16.09.2022 and find that the Tribunal has adjudicated the above ground in its order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under: “6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. The issue involved in this appeal relates to application of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee has to pay interest to M/s. V.S. Net Ltd. of ₹.1.31 crores. M/s. V.S. Net Ltd. have confirmed that they have written off the said amount of R..1.31 crores interest receivable from the assessee for the year ending 31.03.2008 as bad debt. On the basis of that, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the provision of section 41(1) of the Act has to be applied to the assessee. It is not the case of Department that the assessee has debited the said interest amount in the profit and loss account or charged to profit and loss account. The only case of the Assessing Officer is that because M/s. V.S. Net Ltd., to whom the assessee has to pay the interest amount has written off the amount as bad debt, thereby the provision of section 41(1) of the Act as to be applied automatically. 6.1 In this case, the Assessing Officer has invoked section 41(1) of the Act on the ground that the other party M/s. V.S. Net Ltd. has written off the interest amount as bad debt and therefore, section 41(1) of the Act has to be applied in assessee’s case. As per section 41(1) of the Act, in earlier year, the assessee was not allowed deduction in respect of the loss or expenditure revenue or capital for trading liability incurred by the assessee. In the present case, the assessee has not claimed any deduction in earlier years in respect of loss or expenditure or trading liability. Therefore, the Assessing Officer invoked the section 41(1) of the Act presuming that the assessee has got benefit is not correct. We find that section 41(1) of the Act as no M.P. No.120/Chny/22 3 application to the facts of the assessee’s case. Without considering the provision of section 41(1) of the Act, in sprit, the ld. CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we reverse the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. From the above, it is apparent that the Tribunal, by considering all the grounds raised in its appeal, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. 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 assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24 th February, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.02.2023 Vm/- 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.