ACIT, CHENNAI V. Titan Company Limited, Hosur

MA 274/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5752 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MURALI; P R RENGANATH
• Assessee Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER M .P. NO . 27 4 / CHNY /2017 [IN I.T.A. NO. 2192 / CHNY /20 1 0 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 6 - 0 7 M/S. TITAN COMPANY LTD., [EARLIER TITAN INDUSTRIES LTD.], 3, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, HOSUR 635 126. [PAN: AAACT5131A] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(2), CHENNAI 600 034. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. MURALI, ADVOCATE & SHRI P.R. RENGANATH, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2018 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 09. 0 3 .201 8 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2192/MDS/2010 DATED 0 3.0 4 .201 7 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 . THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE ON IMPUTATION M .P. NO. 2 7 4/CHNY/1 7 2 OF INTEREST ON ADVERTISEMENT ADVANCES, WHILE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED WITH THE PHRASE INCLINED TO DI SMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO APPORTIONMENT OF COMMON EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER FO R THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ ACT IN SHORT], THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 , WHICH RELATES TO SECTION 80IB OF THE AC T AND NOT UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THUS, THE SAID GROUND IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 2. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS N O MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WARRANTING INTERFERENCE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS COMPLETE APPEAL PAPERS . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SEPARATE PETI TION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS UNDER: ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED ON 26.12.2016 - WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS RAISED ABOVE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO/TPO ERRED IN DENYING M .P. NO. 2 7 4/CHNY/1 7 3 THE APPELLANT S CLAIM OF DE DUCTION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. - WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS RAISED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EVEN IF THE EXPENDITURE IS SAID NOT BE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT WAS INC URRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE SAME BEING AN IRRETRIEVABLE LOSS, WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION FROM BUSINESS INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT WHIL E CONCLUDING THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO IMPUTATION OF INTEREST ON ADVERTISEMENT ADVANCES, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED WITH THE PHRASE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE GROUN D TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER AT PARA 5 PAGE 7 IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 5. MOREOVER, WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO APPORTIONMENT OF COMMON EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, T HE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AND REPRODUCED PARA 8.4 OF THE ORDER, IN WHICH, THE CLAIM RELATES TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, WHEREAS, THE GROUND RA ISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 RELATES TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TO RECONSIDER THE ABOVE GROUNDS , REFERRED HEREINABOVE, THE M .P. NO. 2 7 4/CHNY/1 7 4 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03.04.2017 IS RECALLED AND DIRECTED THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON REGULAR COURSE BY ISSUING NOTICE TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 09 TH MARCH, 201 8 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09 .0 3 . 201 8 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.