ACIT-2, ERODE V. SKM ANIMAL FEEDS AND FOODS (I) PVT LTD, ERODE

MA 27/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2909 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member M.P. No. 27/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No.3174/Chny/2018] Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Erode. Vs. M/s. SKM Animal Feeds & Foods (I) (P) Ltd., Chavadipalayam Pudur Road, Nanjai Uthukuli, Modakkurichi, Erode 638 104. [PAN: AACCS9493E] (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 12.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: By means of present Miscellaneous Petition, the Revenue seeks to recall the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 3174/Chny/2018 dated 13.09.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The ld. DR relied on the petition and submitted that the Tribunal has considered additional/new evidence produced by the assessee in the form of sale agreement between the assessee and M/s. Pradeepkrishna Industries (P) Ltd., before the ITAT, which was not submitted before the M.P. No.27/Chny/20 2 Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A). It was further submission that the ITAT has failed to appreciate the facts that money advance by the assessee to M/s. Pradeepkrishna Industries (P) Ltd. on 31.10.2012 amounting to ₹.3 crores was transferred to Shri Chandrasekar, M.D. of the both the companies on the same day, which clearly shows that the advance was not used for business purpose. This fact has been brought out in the assessment order and also by the ld. CIT(A) but the ITAT has failed to consider this fact and arrived at the conclusion that the entire amount advanced to M/s. Pradeepkrishna Industries P. Ltd. was used for business purpose. It was further submission that the Tribunal has given a contradictory findings that the Assessing Officer had no material on record to show that the assessee had utilized the borrowed funds for its business purpose and diverted the borrowed funds for investment in subsidiaries or to any other purpose and also misplaced the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries (2019) 102 taxmann.com 52 (SC). In view of the above, the ld. DR has prayed for recalling the order passed by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee was not allowed in pro tanto but remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine M.P. No.27/Chny/20 3 and verify the facts and the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. In this case, while concluding the appeal order, the Tribunal has considered the materials brought on record before the Bench and thereafter, directed the Assessing Officer to examine and verify as to whether sufficient interest free funds are available to the assessee for making investment on the particular day and if not available, naturally, the assessee would have utilized the interest bearing loans for investment and thereafter, the assessee would have adjusted with subsequent receivables, interest on such interest bearing loans utilized for the investment purpose needs to be ascertained and disallowed. In case, the assessee has sufficient interest free funds for investment and not utilized any interest bearing borrowed funds for investment, by keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), the Assessing Officer shall delete the disallowance. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. It is not the case of the Department that based on the materials brought on record, the Tribunal has considered the same and decided the issue in favour of the assessee, whereas, factually, the matter has been remitted M.P. No.27/Chny/20 4 back to the file of the Assessing Officer, thereby, the Assessing Officer was given full privilege to examine and verify once again the details and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes only. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the MP filed by the Department is dismissed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 07 th September, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 07.09.2022 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.