Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

MA 34/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3521 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY SHINDE
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

MA NO. 3 4 /AHD/201 5 (IN ITA NO. 18 7 3 /AHD/20 10 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 7 - 08 PAG E 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND RAJPAL YADAV JM ] M.A. NO. 3 4 /AHD/201 5 (IN ITA NO. 18 7 3 / AHD / 2 0 10 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 08 GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD., ....... .. . ... .. APPELLANT SARADAR PATEL VIDYUT BHAVAN, RACE COUR S E ROAD, BARODA. [PAN: A AACG 6864 F ] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, .... ........ .... .. .. .. .... .. RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 1(1), BARODA . APPEARANCES BY: M.J. SHAH FOR THE A PPELLANT VIJAY SHINDE F OR THE RE SPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 21 ST , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 17 TH , 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM : BY WAY OF THIS RECTIFICATION PETITION, T HE ASSESSEE APPLICANT HAS POINTED OUT THE FOLLOWING MISTAK E IN OUR ORDER DATED 13 TH MARCH, 2015: - 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE A PPLICANT IN THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS AS FOLLOWS : THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN L A W AND ON FACTS HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,13,55,000/ - MADE OUT OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CONSIDERING THE SAME AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME T A X ACT, 1961. MA NO. 3 4 /AHD/201 5 (IN ITA NO. 18 7 3 /AHD/20 10 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 7 - 08 PAG E 2 OF 3 IN PARA 53 , THE TRIBUNAL REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF C . I . T . ( APPEALS ), WHI CH WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND OBSERVED IN PARA 55 THAT THE C . I . T . (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER FOLLOWED GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION OF GUJARAT URJA VIK A S NIG A M LIMITED. THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN APPARENT ERROR IN STATING THAT THE C . I . T . (APPEALS) HA D RELIED ON GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION BECAUSE THE DECISION, WHICH THE C . I . T . QUOTED WAS OF C . I . T . (APPEALS) AND NOT OF THE HIGH COURT . THE ORDER OF C . I . T . (APPEALS) IN APPEAL NO. CAB - I/348/08 - 09 IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT URJ A VIK A S NIG A M LIMITED FOR ASST. YEAR 2006 - 07 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. IN FACT, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED IN ITA NO.1820/AHD/2010 WAS AN ORDER ON APPEAL FROM THE A BOVE DECISION OF C.I.T (APPEALS) IN CAB - I/348/08 - 09. THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTI AL APPARENT ERROR W A S COMMITTED BY THE T RIBUNAL WHEN IT STATED IN PARA 57 THAT THE A.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF C.I.T. (APPEALS), WHICH WAS PURPORTEDLY PASSED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, PARA 55 WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED AND LIKEWISE, PARA 57 AND THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO REFER THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED IN ITA NO.1820/AHD/20 10 DATED 30.09.2013. 3. THE DISPOSAL OF GROUND N O .4 ON ENHANCEMENT OF BOOK PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A A S DISPOSED OFF BY PARA 69 OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALSO REQUIRED T O BE CONSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY SEND ING THE DECISION THEREOF BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. WHILE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE PETITION AND TOOK US THROUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE SAME, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON T HE STAND OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO ADD THERETO . 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS INDEED CORRECT , AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL OUR ORDER TO THE LIMI TED EXTEN T OF DECIDING GROUND NO.1 AND GROUND NO.4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - MA NO. 3 4 /AHD/201 5 (IN ITA NO. 18 7 3 /AHD/20 10 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 7 - 08 PAG E 3 OF 3 08. LEARNED R EPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AG RE E ON THIS. REGISTRY TO ISSUE NOTICE FOR HEARING ON THIS LIMITED A SPEC T . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH D AY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - RAJPAL YADAV PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , THE 17 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD