Universal Cables Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, Kolkata

MA 19/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3680 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANES H, AM] M. A. NO. 19/KOL/2015 IN I.T.A NO. 679/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & M. A. NO. 47/KOL/2015 IN I.T.A NO. 679/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & M. A. NO. 48/KOL/2015 IN I.T.A NO. 1051/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN: AAACU3547P) CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.11.2015 FOR THE APPLICANT: S/SHRI SANJAY BHOWMICK, ADVOCAT E & VINOD KR. SHARMA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI NILOY BARAN SOM, JCIT, SR. DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: BY THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE H AS PRAYED FOR AMENDING THE ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL DATED 27.02.2015. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP MA NO. 19/K/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 679/K/2013. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THA T BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AN ADDITION GROUND WAS RAISED VIDE APPLICATION FILED IN THE TRI BUNAL ON 13.01.2015 I.E. BEFORE THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 03.02.2015 AND ORDER WA S PRONOUNCED IN THIS CASE ON 27.02.2015. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US T O THE ISSUE OF LEAVE LIABILITY RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHICH READS AS UNDER: THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 5, THE LD. DC IT BE DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE A SUM OF RS.22,24,105/- BEING PAYMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LEAVE LIABILITY DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03 IN CASE THE DEPT.S APPEAL I S ALLOWED IN THEIR FAVOUR AND DEDUCTION FOR PROVISION MADE FOR LEAVE LIABILITY IS WITHDRAWN. 2 MA NO.19, 47 & 48/K/2015 UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD., A. Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND WAS NOT ADJUDICATED I.E. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FI LE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS BEING A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WE RECALL OUR ORDER Q UA THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND ONLY AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL IN DUE CO URSE. THIS MISC. APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. NOW, WE TAKE UP MA NOS. 47 & 48/K/2015 ARISING O UT OF ITA NOS. 679 & 1051/K/2013. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US TO PARA 9 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 WHEREIN TH ERE IS A DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WHE REIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO BUT THE INTEREST WAS ON LY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,40,56,805/- BUT REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.14,16,710/- WAS DISALLOW ED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES I.E. 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF OPENING AND CLOSING INVESTMENT AND THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,54,73,515/-. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.14,16,710/- BEING DISALLOWANCE AT 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS IN TERM OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RU LES HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. SR. DR C ONCEDED THAT YES, THIS ISSUE WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS CASE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE REMITTED BACK TO THE F ILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R.E.I AGRO LTD. IN GA 3022 OF 2013, ITAT 161 OF 201 3 DATED 23.12.2013, WHEREIN THE DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EX TENT OF INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME. ON QUERY FROM TH E BENCH, LD. SR. DR HAS ALSO CONCEDED THIS POSITION THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE SET AS IDE TO THE FILE OF AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL IS QUITE REASONABLE THAT ONLY DISALLOWANCE OF AVERAGE OF INVESTMENT @ 0.5% I N TERM OF RULE 8D(2)(III) CAN BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENTS RELATABLE TO E XEMPTED INCOME AND NOT OTHERWISE. THE AO WILL FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.E.I AGRO LTD., SUPRA. THIS BEING A MI STAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN TERM OF THE DE CISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL 3 MA NO.19, 47 & 48/K/2015 UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD., A. Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.E.I AGRO LTD., SUPRA. T HESE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATIONS OF ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2015 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPLICANT : UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD., 4 TH FLOOR, 9/1, R. N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001.. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A) , KOLKATA 4. ACIT, KOLKATA 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .