M/s MHM Holdings Pvt Ltd , BAngalore V. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12 , Bangalore

MA 48/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. MHM Holdings Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, who filed a miscellaneous petition alleging typographic mistakes in a previous Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The dispute centered on the adjustment of a bank guarantee commission against capital gains, which was not explicitly addressed in the original order. The Tribunal had previously remanded the case for a de novo verification of various adjustments to the purchase price, including the bank guarantee commission. The Departmental Representative argued that all issues had been considered comprehensively. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the need for clarification and directed that the bank guarantee commission claim be included in the de novo verification process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124386 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd. in ITA No. 2551/Bang/2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 48/Bang/2023 (in ITA No. 372/Bang/2018) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. MHM Holdings Pvt. Ltd., No. 52, Bassappa Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: AABCM6614L Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range – 12, Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Pavan Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 02-06-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06-06-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present miscellaneous petition is filed by assessee alleging certain typographic mistakes in the order passed by this Tribunal dated 25.11.2022 in the above appeal. 2. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that this Tribunal has observed the submissions in respect of a fresh claim made by assessee regarding bank guarantee invocation of Rs.1,21,00,000/- before the Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings in para 5 of the impugned order. The assessee had Page 2 M.P. No. 48/Bang/2023 (in ITA No. 372/Bang/2018) sought for adjusting the bank guarantee commission paid against the capital gains during the assessment proceedings as was submitted at the time of hearing before this Tribunal. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that this Tribunal has not given categorical observation in respect of this issue and therefore the present miscellaneous petition has been filed. 2.1 The Ld.DR on the contrary submitted that, all issues raised by assessee has been considered in a consolidated way as the assessee had made various adjustment to the purchase price and this was one of the adjustment sought by the assessee during the assessment proceedings which did not form part of the return of income. 2.2 It is the submission of the Ld.DR that all the issues has been considered by this Tribunal in para 9 onwards and in para 15, this Tribunal has directed the Ld.AO to conduct a denovo verification of facts. He submitted that the present miscellaneous petition does not require any consideration, as all proposed adjustments by the assessee has been remanded to the Ld.AO for necessary verification. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 3. We note that in para 5, this Tribunal recorded categorical observation that, there was a fresh claim of the assessee, regarding bank guarantee commission proposed to be adjusted against the capital gains. We note that this Tribunal has dealt this issue along with other adjustments sought for by the assessee. We agree with the argument of the Ld.DR that in para Page 3 M.P. No. 48/Bang/2023 (in ITA No. 372/Bang/2018) 15, this Tribunal directed the Ld.AO to carry out denovo observation by observing as under: “15. In the light of the above factual findings, we notice that the lower authorities have not examined the evidences submitted and have not verified the terms of the agreement. The assessee also has not given before the lower authorities which would help the CIT(A)/AO to understand the facts, with regard to the clear breakup of the various adjustments made and how the same is relatable to the completion accounts to substantiate that it is an adjustment to purchase price. Therefore in our considered view the issue of various adjustments disallowed by the CIT(A)/AO with regard to the computation of capitals gains should be remitted to the AO for a de novo verification of facts. The AO is directed to consider the adjustments made based on completion accounts, objections filed by the purchaser, the details of bank guarantee invoked etc., before deciding the case. The AO is also directed to keep in mind the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd (supra) while deciding the allowability of the various adjustments claimed by the assessee against the provisional purchase price. The assessee is directed to submit all the relevant details and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.” 3.1 This Tribunal hereinabove directs the Ld.AO to carry out necessary verification denovo, based on the principles laid down in the case of ACIT vs. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd. in ITA No. 2551/Bang/2019 by order dated 16.08.2022. The assessee has also been directed to file all relevant details in respect of the various adjustments that has been sought for, against the purchase price, and to establish how these adjustments are relatable to the completion of accounts. 3.2 However for the sake of clarification, we mention herein that, the claim of the assessee regarding the corporate guarantee commission that was raised during the assessment procedure, also be considered while carrying out the denovo verification as Page 4 M.P. No. 48/Bang/2023 (in ITA No. 372/Bang/2018) forming part of the adjustment sought by assessee. The assessee is directed to file all necessary documents in respect of the same and to cooperate with the assessing officer. 4. The rest of the contents of order dated 25/11/2022 passed by this Tribunal shall remain unchanged. In the result, the M.P. filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06 th June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 06 th June, 2023. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore