Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5213 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
9 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
20-11-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
16-11-2023
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
09-02-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.26/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.758/PUN/2019) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Limited, R&D Centre, D-4, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. PAN : AAACW2472M Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This present Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee seeking the modification of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.758/PUN/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 10.05.2022 on the issue of disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. It is submitted that the order of remand to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication made by this Tribunal is not warranted placing reliance on the following judicial precedents :- (i) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT, 295 ITR 466 (SC). Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarani Date of hearing : 17.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 21.11.2023 MA No.26/PUN/2023 2 (ii) United Commercial Bank vs. CIT, 9 Taxman 260 (Cal.). (iii) Ratanchand Manoharmal vs. ITO, 128 taxmann.com 243 (Mad.). (iv) Maharani Kanak Kumari Sahiba vs. CIT, 28 ITR 462 (Patna). 3. On perusal of the assessment order, it would be reveal that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of expenditure claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act by disallowing the differential amount of revenue expenditure incurred as against the expenditure approved by the DSIR. However, while computing the amount of disallowance, the Assessing Officer had erroneously computed the expenditure of Rs.1,89,08,37,068/- instead of Rs.86,17,65,068/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of expenditure to Rs.62,60,65,990/- being the expenditure incurred on test production batches etc. When the matter reached before this Tribunal, the Tribunal following its earlier decision for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 restored the issue for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., 31 taxmann.com 300 (Guj.) opining that whether the expenditure claimed by the assessee which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) falls within the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat MA No.26/PUN/2023 3 High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) or not requires verification. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the order of remand made by this Tribunal is most appropriate and proper. However, we make it clear that the Assessing Officer shall confine the verification to the extent of disallowance as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) i.e. Rs.60,26,68,846/-. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 21 st day of November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 21 st November, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “C” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
