ITO, CHENNAI V. M/s. Annapurna Steel Enterprise, CHENNAI

MA 249/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9976 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NO. 249/MDS/2012 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1974/MDS/2010) & I.T.A. NO. 1974/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD - VIII(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (PETITIONER & APPELLANT) V. M/S ANNAPURNA STEEL ENTERPRISE, NO.135, LINGHI CHETTY STREET, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AAGFA 5353 G (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI T.N. BETGIRI, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : NON E DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : DEPARTMENT IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS AGGR IEVED THAT A GROUND REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX LIABILIT Y OF ` 9,24,881/- MADE BY THE A.O., BUT ALLOWED BY CIT(APPEALS) WAS N OT ADJUDICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL. 2. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE IS SUE OF NOTICE. M.P. NO. 249/MDS/12 I.T.A. NO. 1974/MDS/10 2 3. WE HEARD LEARNED D.R. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUN AL WHILE DISPOSING OF REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1974/MD S/2010 AND ASSESSEES C.O. NO. 2/MDS/2012 HAD NOT ADJUDICATED ON GROUND 3 & 3.1 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE A.O. A SUM OF ` 9,24,881 TOWARDS SALES TAX PAYMENTS. 3.1 IT IS SUBMITTED THOUGH THE CLAIM THAT THE SALE S TAX PAYABLE CONVERTED INTO LOAN, ASSESSEE FIRM DID NOT SHOW A NY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. 4. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ` 9,24,881/- AS SALES TAX PAYABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AFTER CHARGI NG SUCH SUM IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. A.O. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY SECTION 43B SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED SINCE PAYMENTS WE RE NOT EFFECTED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. ASSESSEE THR OUGH A LETTER REPLIED THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SALES TA X DEPARTMENT FOR A DEFERRED SCHEME THROUGH WHICH SALES TAX DUES WERE C ONVERTED TO A LOAN REPAYABLE TO GOVERNMENT OVER A NINE YEAR PERIO D. A.O. FINDING THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPOR T OF ITS CLAIM OF DEFERRAL, DISALLOWED THE SUM INVOKING SECTION 43B O F THE ACT. ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) WAS SUCCESSFU L. IT SEEMS ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT BEF ORE M.P. NO. 249/MDS/12 I.T.A. NO. 1974/MDS/10 3 CIT(APPEALS). CIT(APPEALS) RELYING ON CIRCULAR NO. 674 OF CBDT HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT, LD. CIT(APPEA LS) HAD NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT, BUT HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, BA SED ON THE AGREEMENT MENTIONED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND CONSIDE RING CIRCULAR NO.674, REPRODUCED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER, ASSESSEE WAS WELL ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM. 5. WE FIND NO GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR RULE 46A VIOLATION. LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVING GIVEN A CLE AR FINDING THAT AGREEMENT WAS ON RECORD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, M.P. FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED, I.T.A. NO. 1974/MDS/2010 RECALLED, AND RECALLED APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND OF FEBRUARY, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)-IX, CHENNAI- 34/ CIT-VIII, CHENNAI-34/D.R./GUARD FILE