Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., Pune V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

MA 40/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4136 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , . . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . /MA NO. 40 /PN/ 20 1 5 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 17 6 /PN/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0 KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD., HADAPSAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PUNE SOLAPUR ROAD, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411013 ... APPLICANT PAN: AAACK2479C VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 11, PUNE ... RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 . 0 2 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02 .0 3 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA , JM : THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 17 6 /PN/20 14 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0, ORDER DATED 30 . 0 4 .201 5 . 2 M A NO. 40 /PN/20 1 5 ARISING O UT OF ITA NO. 17 6 /PN/ 20 14 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) . THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE US IS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY OBSERVING THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULE S WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL WAS NOT PRESSED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID ISSUE WAS NOT PRESSED ONLY BECAUSE OF SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED AND WH ILE ARGUING THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD CLARIFIED THIS POINT AND HAD ALSO MADE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEA THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED HIS OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION BEFORE INVOKING RULE 8 D OF THE RULES. THE APPLICANT HOWEVER, FAIRLY ADMITTED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT THESE ARGUMENTS FIND PLACE IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER. THE PLEA OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE US WAS THAT THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN MISCEL LANEOUS APPLICATION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 9 TO 12 OF THE ORDER. THE PARAS 9 TO 11 DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES, WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES, VIDE PARA 12, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED ANY OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION. THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO THE PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDER ED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE INDIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF INCOME AND THEN CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN VIEW 3 M A NO. 40 /PN/20 1 5 ARISING O UT OF ITA NO. 17 6 /PN/ 20 14 THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT, WHERE THE PLEA MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF NON - RECORDIN G OF ANY SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE , I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE BEING DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF INCOME . T HE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE . THEREAFTER, THE ISSUE WAS DECID ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE BEING MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT IS THUS, DISMISSED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED . ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF MARCH , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 2 ND M ARCH , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APP LICANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE