TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD, V. ASST CIT 2(3),

MA 331/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1665 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R MURALIDHAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

K IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI ., .. , BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, V.P. AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM 331/ MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF IT(TP)A NO. 7596/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LIMITED, BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMY MODY STREET, FORT, MUMBAI -400 001. / VS. ASSTT. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX CIR. 2(3), 5 TH FLOOR, R.NO. 552, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 20. . / PAN : AAACT 1848E ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ()' / RESPONDENT ) ' * / APPLICANT BY : SHRI R. MURALIDHAR ()' * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.L. PERUMAL * / / DATE OF HEARING : 28-2-2014 * / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-03-2014 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12-6-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 7596/MUM/2012. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS POINTED O UT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION, THE FIRST MISTAKE WHICH HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER:- THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE THE HONBLE TRIBU NAL HAS CONSIDERED MA 331/MUM/2013 2 THE AMOUNT OF RS. 0.32 CRORES AS BEVP CHARGES PAID TO TATA SONS (APPEARING IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER) AS OPPOSE D TO RES. 1.25 CRORES (AS APPEARING IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O.) 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AMOU NT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BEBP CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO TAT A SONS AS INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS WRONGLY T AKEN IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT RS. 0.32 CRORES AS AGAINST RS. 1.25 CRO RES AND THIS MISTAKE INADVERTENTLY OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, RECTIFY THE SAME BY DIRECTING THAT T HE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BEBP CHARGES WHICH IS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ALLOWING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BE TAKEN AS R S. 1.25 CRORES INSTEAD OF RS. 0.32 CRORES. 4. AS REGARDS THE SECOND MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS MISC. APPLICATION, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8-D (2)( II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AS INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 12 OF ITS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IT IS, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT IN THE FINAL ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/R 8-D(2)(II) WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1.07 CRORES AS P ER THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP AND THE SAME BEING LOWER THAN THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 14-A OF TH E ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE ON THIS ISSUE. 5. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESE NT MISC. APPLICATION, THE DISALLOWANCE FINALLY MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AS PER THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IN PURSU ANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP WAS ACTUALLY RS. 2.28 CRORES AND NOT RS. 1.07 C RORES AS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DISALLOW ANCE FINALLY MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 2.28 CRORES THUS WAS MORE THAN THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1.28 CRORES OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 RE LATING TO THE SAID DISALLOWANCE THUS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED ON MER IT. THERE IS THUS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT DECIDIN G THIS ISSUE ON MERIT ON THE MA 331/MUM/2013 3 GROUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS MORE THAN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECTIFY THE SAME BY RECALLING THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH TO DECIDE THIS ISS UE ON MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-03-2014. . * 4 5 6 05:03:2014 * SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER 4C / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 6 DATED 05-03-2014 .C../ RK , SR. PS ' #%& '& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. E () / THE ACIT(2)(3), MUMBAI 4. E / DRP -1, MUMBAI/ACIT (TP) 11(2),MUMBAI , BANGALORE 5. (CCI , / I , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI K BENCH 6. J / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) (C //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI