Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT,

MA 26/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6308 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G V GOPALA RAO CIT IDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S R R K SHARMA
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO.26/BANG/2011 (IN ITA NO.303/BANG/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 KARNATAKA SOAPS & DETERGENTS LTD., BANGALORE PUNE HIGHWAY, BANGALORE. : APPLICANT VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.R.R.K. SHARMA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V. GOPALA RAO, CIT-I(DR) O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE STATING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.02.2011 IN SO FAR AS REMITTING BACK THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITU RE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.883 & 884/B/10 WAS NOT AV AILABLE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED M.P. NO.26/BANG/11 PAGE 2 OF 3 BY THE TRIBUNAL BASED ON THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE AVAI LABLE AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. 2. AT THE OUTSET, ON PERUSAL OF OUR LOG BOOK, IT W AS REVEALED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ISSUE OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS COVERED B Y THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.883 & 884 (PARA 14). LD. DR AT THAT TIME HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISION WAS RENDERED ON 23.9.2010 AND IT WAS NOT BEFORE THE AO FOR CONSIDERATION. SINCE OTHER ISSUES WERE REMIT TED BACK TO THE LD. AO, THE BENCH HAD CONSIDERED IT FIT TO REMIT BACK THIS ISSUE ALSO BEFORE THE LD. AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION SINCE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.883 & 884/B/10 WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. AO AT T HE TIME OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WHEN THESE EARLIER ARGUMENTS WERE RECOLLECTED, THE LD. AR SUBM ITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON AN EARLIER OCCASION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3081 & 3082/B/04 AND THE BENCH FAILED TO TAKE NO TICE OF THE SAME IN THE PAPERBOOK. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO APPRECIATE THIS PLEA OF THE LD. AR BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL HEARING THOUGH THE CASES REFERRED ABOVE FORMED PART OF THE PAPERBOOK, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH. MORE OVER, ON MERITS ON PERUSING THESE CIT ED CASES RELIED BY THE APPELLANT, WE FIND THAT THE LD. ARS CLAIM THAT IN ALL THESE CITED CASES THE CAUSE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND ITS CHARACTER ISTICS ARE IDENTICAL AND IS IN THE NATURE OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS DE BATABLE. 4. THE LD. DR STOUTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IS DEFERRED REVENUE M.P. NO.26/BANG/11 PAGE 3 OF 3 EXPENDITURE IS DEBATABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE AND AR E NOT IDENTICAL TO THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE IN THE ABOVE CITED CASES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR THE REASONS CITED IN PARA 2, THE TRIBU NAL HAD DECIDED TO REMIT BACK THE ISSUE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. FURTHER, FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE NATURE OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITUR E TO BE IDENTICAL WITH ALL THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IS DEBATABLE . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD TO BE RECTIFIED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE A CT. SINCE WE HAVE DIRECTED THE LD. AO TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE AFRESH, HE SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE DECISION RENDERED IN ITA NO.3081 & 3082/B/2004 WHIL E DECIDING THE CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DI SMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 8 TH APRIL, 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. C IT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.