Spring Merchandisers (P) Ltd., Mathura V. I.T.O.-3(4), Mathura

MA 14/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8507 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: M M AGARWAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 14/AGRA/2012 (IN ITA NO. 470/AGRA/2009) SPRING MERCHANDISERS (P) LTD., VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER, 64/71, DAMPIER NAGAR, 3(4), MATHURA. MATHURA.(PAN:AAACS5249D). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.M. AGARWAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.07.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 25.02.2011, WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE PRESSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO THE MISTAK ES POINTED OUT IN PARA 5(I) & (II) OF THE M.A. HE HAS STATED THAT HIS ARGUMENTS WOULD CONFINE TO THE ISSUE OF NETTING OF INTEREST. THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH, WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER, WHICH READS A S UNDER : MA NO. 14/AGRA/2012 2 12. AS REGARDS TO THE ALTERNATIVE REQUEST OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REGARDING NETTING OF INTEREST RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE FDRS AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK, AFTER G OING THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ALTERNATIVE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE INTEREST ON FDRS HAS BEEN TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHEREAS INTEREST DEBITED TO THE PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT CONSTITUTES BUSINESS EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 36(1 ) & (2) OF THE ACT. NETTING OF THE INCOME UNDER ONE HEAD OF INCOME AGAI NST EXPENDITURE UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEAD OF INCOME IS NOT POSSIBLE AS PER LAW. THEREFORE, THE ALTERNATE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 3. CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTEREST ON FDRS HAS BEEN TREATED AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES, WHEREAS INTEREST DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT WAS TREATED AS BUSINES S EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 36(1) & (2) OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDINGLY, NETTING WAS NOT ALLOWED BEING THE INCOME UNDER ONE HEAD OF INCOME AGAINST EXPENDITURE UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEAD OF INCOME. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POW ER TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANAMIKA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., 251 ITR 585 HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT CHANG E ITS VIEW ALREADY TAKEN IN THE MATTER. HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. IDEAL ENGINEERS, 251 ITR 743 AND HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGAR WAL WAREHOUSING, 257 ITR 235 (MP) HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT REVIEW T HE ORDER ALREADY PASSED ON MERITS. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON MERITS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF NETTING OF INTEREST, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD. ON MERITS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN THAT PARA 12 OF THE MA NO. 14/AGRA/2012 3 ORDER OF TRIBUNAL MAY BE REVIEWED, WHICH IS NOT PER MISSIBLE UNDER LAW. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.07.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY