M/S STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD, CHENNAI V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

MA 182/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1490 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AR V SREENIVSAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 80IA; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NOS. 181 AND 182/CHNY/2018 [IN I.T.A. NOS. 1311 & 1312/CHNY/2018] ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD., NO. 19-A, RUKMANI LAKSHMIPATHY ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008. [PAN: AAACS4643J] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), NO. 121, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR. V. SREENIVSAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2018 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, THE ASSESSEE SEEK TO RECALL THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NOS.1311 & 1312/CHNY/2018 DATED 19.07.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. BY REFERRING TO THE PETITION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE PETITIONER HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT]. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE M.P. NOS. 181 & 182/CHNY/18 2 TRIBUNAL HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO CONSIDER THE COMPILATION OF CASE LAW FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUPPORT, WHEREIN, IT HAD BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT REVISIONARY POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT A FULLER INQUIRY WHEN HE HAD ALREADY ARRIVED AT A VIEW AFTER CONDUCTING AN INQUIRY. MOREOVER, THE PETITIONER WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND RESTORED AS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 2. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WARRANTING RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WHAT WAS OBSERVED AND HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRIBUTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE HAVING BUSINESS DEALING WITH THE NODAL AGENCY. THUS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DISALLOWED THE SAME IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE DISALLOWED WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENTS. 6.1 WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, AS PER THE LD. PCIT, THE BUSINESS INCOME AVAILABLE FOR DEDUCTION WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF .30,42,89,961/-, WHEREAS, AGAINST THE CLAIM OF .93,40,83,416/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM M.P. NOS. 181 & 182/CHNY/18 3 OF .8,78,78,580/- AS NOT DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF .84,62,04,836/-. IF AT ALL TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF .1,80,03,358/- SUNDRY INCOME OF .10,55,33,636/- AND OPERATING REVENUE OF .7,34,67,288/- ARE RELATING TO INTEREST ON OLD LOANS AND ADVANCES, WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GRANTING DEDUCTION, STILL, THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DISALLOWING THE INELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME. THUS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED EXCESS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND COPY OF THE OVERALL BALANCE SHEET OR PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO COME TO AN EXACT CONCLUSION. THUS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. PCIT HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT BY RECONSIDERING VARIOUS ASPECTS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. FROM THE FIRST LINE OF PARA 6, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PAPER BOOK RUNS UPTO PAGE 122 CONTAINING RETURN OF INCOME, VARIOUS NOTICES, REPLIES, ETC. AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE COMPILATION OF CASE LAW, NOT EVEN A SINGLE CASE LAW HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, THE ALLEGATION IS BASELESS AND STANDS DEFEATED. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE LD. PCIT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS THERE WAS HUGE DIFFERENCE OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DISALLOWING THE INELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT FIND COPY OF THE OVERALL BALANCE SHEET OR M.P. NOS. 181 & 182/CHNY/18 4 PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME FOR DISALLOWING THE INELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME OR NOT. THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED ALONG WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER ELABORATIVE NOR CONTAINING ANY SUCH DETAILS THAT CAN BE EQUATED ON PAR WITH BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WARRANTING RECALL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.07.2018 AND THUS, BOTH THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 16.11.2018 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.