UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT VAPI CIR , VAPI

MA 229/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4843 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SENT H IL KUMARAN
• Keywords: Bonafide mistake
• Section: 2(A)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 229/MUM/2019 IN ITA NO. 4073/MUM/2003 (A.Y 1997-98 ) UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD.), UNIPHOS HOUSE, 11-C.D. MARG, MADHU PARK, KHAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400052. PAN: AAACU3440P VS. ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PERCY PARDIWALA WITH MS. VASANTI PATEL (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SENTHIL KUMARAN (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.06.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, J.M. 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATIONS OF MISTAKE IN ORDER DATED 12.09.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO. 4073/MUM/2003 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 1997-98. IN THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE INTERALIA PLEADED THAT THERE IS CERTAIN MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018, WHICH ARE APPARENT AND REQUIRE RE CTIFICATION. 2. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN PARA-18 OF THE ORDER WHICH RELATES TO GROUND NO. 2(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPE CT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-9 9, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1519/AHD/2002. THE TRIBU NAL WHILE PASSING THE ORDER ON GROUND NO. 2(A) IN PARA-18 AT PAGE NO. 17 OF THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE M.A. NO. 229 MUM 2019-UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED. 2 DECISION OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. HOWEVER, AT TH E CONCLUSION THE WORD DELETED WAS WRITTEN INSTEAD OF UPHELD. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE WORD DELETED IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IT SHOULD BE C ORRECTED AS UPHELD. 3. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE NOT DISPUTED THE CONTENT ION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018 PASSED I N ITA NO. 4073/MUM/2003. WE HAVE NOTED THAT WHILE ADJUDICATIN G THE GROUND NO. 2(A) OF THE APPEAL, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF TRI BUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND UPHELD THE ACT ION OF LD. CIT(A) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN FACT, WHILE ADJUDICATI NG THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CENTRAL-VI, MUM BAI DATED 20.03.2002. HOWEVER, DUE TO INADVERTENT AND BONAFIDE MISTAKE, T HE WORD DELETED WAS WRITTEN INSTEAD OF UPHELD. CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SION OF PARTIES, WE DIRECT THAT PARA-18 OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018 IN ITA N O. 4073/MUM/2003 BE READ AS UNDER: 18. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1998-99, WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE N OT AT ANY VARIANCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME THE DISA LLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS SUSTAINED 5. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT VI DE GROUND NO. III. 3.1(A)(B)(C) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80-I AND 80-IA. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE ORDER HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE ITEMS CLAIMED/ALLOWED FO R INCLUSION OF DEDUCTION M.A. NO. 229 MUM 2019-UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED. 3 UNDER SECTION 80-IA. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THA T ALL THE CLAIMS/ISSUES WERE NOT COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND CERTAINLY THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL CLAIMS/ISS UES RELATING TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA IN THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THUS, CERTAIN ISSUES/DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I AND 80- IA WERE NOT APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH BY A SPEAKING ORDER. THEREFORE, NON-ADJ UDICATION OF ISSUES/CLAIMS BY SPEAKING ORDER IS A MISTAKE AND REQUIRES SUITABL E ORDER FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT EITHER THE TRIBUNAL MAY SPECIFIED THE ITEM/VARIOUS CLAIMS ADMISSIBLE FOR DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80- IA OR RECALL THE ORDER QUA THE SAID GROUND(S) OF AP PEAL FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMI TS THAT HE LEFT THE DECISION ON THESE CLAIMS AT THE DISCRETION OF TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018. 8. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE/ CLAIM WE DIRECTED/ALLOWED THE GROUNDS ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. WE HAVE NOTED THAT CERTAIN ITEMS/CLAIMS WERE NOT COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 12 .09.2018. THEREFORE, THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018 IS RECALLED QUA GROUND NO. I II. 3.1(A)(B)(C). SINCE WE HAVE RECALLED THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018 QUA GROUND NO. III. 3.1(A)(B)(C), M.A. NO. 229 MUM 2019-UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED. 4 THEREFORE, THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEAR ING OF APPEAL BY REGULAR BENCH BY SERVING PROPER NOTICE ON THE PARTIES. 9. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.06.2019. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 14.06.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI