Indian Overseas Bank, CHENNAI V. Additional CIT, CHENNAI

MA 213/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0513 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAJI P JACOB ADL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Bonafide mistake; Rule 8D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M . P .NO. 2 1 3 /MDS/201 3 ( IN ITA NO. 99/MDS/2010 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, 763, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI 600 002 [PAN: AAACI 1223 J] (PETITIONER) VS ADDITIONAL CIT, LTU CHENNAI (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI C. NARESH, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P.JACOB, ADL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 10-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-02-2014 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUN AL DATED 19-03-2013. M.P.NO. 213/MDS/2013 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI C. NARESH, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE-BANK SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07 RELATES TO DIS-ALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DIS-ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE BY APPLYING RULE 8D AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). FOR THE AY .2006-07, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE, AS TH E SAME HAD COME IN FORCE W.E.F. 24-03-2008. THE LD.AR CONTEND ED THAT SINCE BUNCH OF PETITIONS WERE LISTED FOR HEARING ON THE D ATE FIXED, HE INADVERTENTLY MADE STATEMENT AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND. WHEREAS, FOR OTHER AYS, HE HAD MADE S UBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD.AR FURTHER POINTED THAT IN SAME ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME ISSUE IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.818/MDS/2010 FOR THE AY. 2007-08. THE TRIBU NAL HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND RE MITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE LD.AR REITERATED THAT THE STATEMENT MADE BY HIM FOR NOT PRESSING THE GROUND WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. M.P.NO. 213/MDS/2013 :- 3 -: 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI SHAJI P.JACOB, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN THE APPEAL F OR SUBSEQUENT AY SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. HOWEVER, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT TH IS IS NOT A MISTAKE ARISING OUT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL . THE GROUND WAS DISMISSED AS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE STATEMENT AT THE BAR FOR NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES. THE LD.AR APPEA RING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAD INADVERTEN TLY MADE STATEMENT FOR NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUBMISSIONS. IT IS A FACT THAT BUNCH OF PET ITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE WERE FIXED FOR HEAR ING ON THE DATE WHEN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS HEARD. THERE WERE MULTIPLE ISSUES IN THE APPEALS AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE AYS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DIS-A LLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S.14A IN EACH OF THE AYS. IT WAS ONL Y IN THE AY.2006-07 THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE STA TEMENT FOR M.P.NO. 213/MDS/2013 :- 4 -: NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND. FOR THE SUBSEQUENT AY. I ..E, AY.2007- 08, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUBMISSIONS AND THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.16 OF THE ORDER FOLLOWING THE J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD., REPORTED AS 328 ITR 81 (BOM) HAD REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FOR THE AY.2006-07 AS WELL, THE PROVISIO NS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 5. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE MADE A BONAFIDE MISTAKE BY NOT PRESSING TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT BONAFIDE MIS TAKE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE RECTIFIED. THE MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRAT ED ABOVE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE LD.AR OF ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE OF DIS-ALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.R .8D RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.3 OF ITA NO.99/MDS/2010 R ELEVANT TO THE AY.2006-07 IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. M.P.NO. 213/MDS/2013 :- 5 -: 6. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE MISCELLAN EOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE-BANK IS ALLOWED. 7. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE RECTIFICATION IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IT SHALL NOT BE A PRECEDENT TO BE F OLLOWED IN GENERAL. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.