The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad V. Nirma Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 180/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3361 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB

Judgement Text

MA NO. 180 /AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 541 /AHD/20 05 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 1 - 02 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND KUL BHARAT JM ] M.A. NO. 180 /AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 541 / AHD / 2 0 05) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 1 - 02 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1), ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT AHMEDA BAD. VS. NIRMA LIMITED, .... ........ .... .. .. .. .... .. RESPONDENT AHMEDABAD. [PAN: A AACN 5350 N ] APPEARANCES BY: NARENDRA SINGH , FOR THE A PPELLANT S.N. SOPARKAR, FOR THE RE SPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 21 , 201 5 DATE OF PRON OUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 21 , 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM : 1. BY WAY OF THIS RECTIFICATION PETITION THE APPLICANT ASSESSING OFFICER CALLS INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT F OLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL 1. WHETHER THE HON BLE I T AT WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE O R DER OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ATUL I N TERMEDIATES WHICH HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IS TO BE COMPUTED ON ELIGIBLE BUSINESS PROFIT ONLY AFTER REDUCING THEREFROM PORTION OF PROFIT ON WHICH DEDUCTION HAS ALREADY BEEN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB ? 2. WHETHER THE HON BLE ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING EVEN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN EMPL OYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF/ESIC WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT S JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE ROAD T RANSPORT CORPORATION , 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (GUJARAT) ? MA NO. 180 /AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 541 /AHD/20 05 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 1 - 02 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE TOOK US THROUGH THE RECTIFICATION PETITION AND RELIED UPON THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME. HE HAD NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS. 10, 11 & 12 AND PA RAGRAPH NOS. 14, 15 & 16. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE THESE GR IEVANCES WERE ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL , THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT AT BEST COULD BE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, WHAT IS TERMED AS , BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUES . 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEN PROCEEDED TO POINT OUT THAT ONLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL BUT THESE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED CORRECTLY AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE S OF CIT VS. AM O L I O RGANIC S (P . ) LTD. [(2014) 41TAXMAN.COM 149 (GUJ)] A ND GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [41 TAXMAN.COM 100 (GUJ)] . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IN THE SAID CASE IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY SUCH PAYMENT S ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE PAID BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO FINDING TO THAT EFFECT. 5 . WE ARE NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MERIT OF THE CASE. WHAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IS CLEAR IN AS MUCH AS GROUND OF APPEAL POINTED OUT IN THE RECTIFICATION PETITION HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE ALSO NOTE THE REVENUE IS ALREADY IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE TAX AP PEAL NO.1224 OF 2014 AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 5 TH DECEMBER, 2014 ADMITTED THE MA NO. 180 /AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 541 /AHD/20 05 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 1 - 02 PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON THESE VERY ISSUES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THERE CANNOT, THUS, BE ANY OCCASION TO SAY THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE ON THESE ISSUES. THE PETITION FILED BY THE APPLICANT IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY DEVOID OF ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. 6 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE SEE NO MERIT IN THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE , DISMISSED . 7 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST 2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - KUL BHARAT PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , 21 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 201 5 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FI LE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD