DCIT, Alappuzha V. N.C.John & Sons P.Ltd, Alappuzha

MA 29/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7696 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S MAHADEVAN
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN, AM M.P. NOS. 28 & 29/COCH/2010 (ARSG. OUT OF I.T.A. NOS. 563 & 733/COCH/20 08) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-0 5 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA. VS. M/S. N.C.JOHN & SONS P. LTD., ALAPPUZHA. [PAN: AABCN 0264H] (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.MAHADEVAN, CA DATE OF HEARING 02/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 9/03/2012 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION S PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 12-10-2009 PASSED IN I.T.A. NOS. 563 & 733/CO CH/2008 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 IN RESPECT OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 2. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE, VIDE ITS ORDER REFERRED SUPRA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED T HERE IN WAS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS, BEING THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT. IN THESE PETITIONS, IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO YEARS ON THE POINTS AGITATED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS MORE THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS FIXED BY THE CBDT. ACCORDINGLY THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE POSTED FOR HEARING. M.P. NOS. 28 & 29/COCH/2010 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORD. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ISSUE REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTI ON TO BE ALLOWED U/S.10B OF THE ACT IS BEING AGITATED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE APPEAL RE LATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN ONE MORE GROUND RELATING TO T HE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT, THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B THAT WAS ALLO WED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPE LLATE ORDER. THE SAID DETAILS ARE TABULATED BELOW:- A SSESSMENT YEAR AS PER S. 143(3) ORDER AS PER CIT(A)S ORDER 2003-04 RS. 88,08,305 RS. 2,05,98,774 2004-05 RS.1,06,02,635 RS.3,82,70,318/- A CURSORY PERUSAL OF THE TABLE CITED ABOVE REVEALS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B ALONE EXCEEDS MONETARY LIMITS FIXED IN THIS REGARD. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVERTED OU R ATTENTION TO THE COMPUTATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID WORKINGS ARE PLACED IN PGS. 44 AND 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECT IVELY. IN THE SAID COMPUTATIONS, IT IS SHOWN THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON PER USAL OF THE SAID WORKINGS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPARE THE TAX EFFECT BE TWEEN THE QUANTUM FIXED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE QUANTUM DETERMINED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. IN OUR VIEW, THE TAX EFFECT SHOULD BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES AGITATED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THE WORKINGS SUBMITTED BY THE D EPARTMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY CBDT IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDI NGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER DATED 1 2-10-2009 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE REFERRE D SUPRA. M.P. NOS. 28 & 29/COCH/2010 3 5. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE ORDER RELATING TO THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT REFERRED SUPRA AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEALS I N THE NORMAL COURSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 9-03-2012 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 9TH MARCH, 2012 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. N.C.JOHN & SONS P. LTD., VAZHICHERRY, ALAP PUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN