M/s. Amin Manilal & Co., Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(3), Bangalore

MA 18/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3432 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHINI MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE P RESIDENT M.P NO.18/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO.1303/BANG/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 AMIN MANILAL & COMPANY PVT. LTD., NO.3, 1 ST FLOOR, HEMPRAKASH, 90/92, KAZI SYED STREET, MASJID BUNDER, MUMBAI. PAN AAACA 3514 E. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI AJIT SHAH, C.A RESPONDENT BY : MS. PRIYADARSHINI MISHRA, JCIT (DR, ITAT, BENGALURU) DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.02.2019 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E U/S 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN APPARENT ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15/12/2017. 2. IN THE ABOVE APPEAL, THE ISSUE FOR CONSI DERATION WAS WITH REGARD TO BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CON SIDERED BY THE AO/CIT(A) AS BOGUS AND THEREFORE DISALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME. CONSEQU ENT TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE BUSINESS LOSS TREAT ED AS BOGUS WAS NOT ALLOWED MP NO.18/B/18 2 TO BE SET OFF OF THE SAID LOSS AGAINST INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THAT IN GROUND NO.1(H), THE ASSESSEE HAD PRAYED FOR ALLOWING CERTAIN EXPENS ES TO MAINTAINING CORPORATE STRUCTURE LIKE INCURRING CERTAIN EXPENDIT URE LIKE AUDIT FEES STAFF EXPENSES ETC. AND THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND TO THAT EXTENT BUSINESS LOSS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES FOR MAINTAININ G THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AND IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE ON THE DECISION SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH 2.3 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED EITHER U/S 37(1 ) OR SEC. 57(III) OF THE ACT. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND I FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE H AS UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRE D BY THE APPELLANT FOR MAINTAINING ITS CORPORATE STRUCTURE, AUDIT FEES, DIRECTORS REMUNERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. TH E CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THESE EXPENSES AS REGULAR BUSI NESS EXPENDITURE BUT AS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, ANY E XPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED CANNOT BE ALLOWED. FU RTHER, IT HAS CLAIMED THAT SOME DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN AL LOWED FOR EARNING OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCED SUCH AS IN TEREST DIVIDEND ETC, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT IT HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENSE CORRESPONDING TO THE INCOME OFFERED. THEREF ORE, THE EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARD EARNING THESE INCOMES CAN NOT BE ALLOWED.' 4. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA GRAPH 9 HAS ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR THOSE EXPENSES U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT AS THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED TO EARN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN OUR MP NO.18/B/18 3 VIEW THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE S AID TO SUFFER FROM ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. IN THE GUISE OF MISC. APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SEEK REV IEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LAW IN THIS REGARD IS WELL SETTLED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. I, THEREFORE, DID NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE MISC. PETITION AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISC. PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 . SD/- (N.V VASUDEVAN) VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE DATED : 20/2/2019 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGI STRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE