M/s Shri Synthetics Ltd., Ujjain V. The ACIT, 2(1), Ujjain

MA 48/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6963 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GOYAL
• Keywords: Wholly owned subsidiary; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AAECS0090B M.A.NOS. 47 & 48/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NOS. 471 & 452/IND/2006) A.YS. : 1996-97 & 1997-98 SHREE SYNTHETICS LIMITED, DY. CIT, UJJAIN. UJJAIN VS APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI S. C. GOYAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2011. O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY CERTAIN MISTAKES ALLEGED TO BE OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH JULY, 2010. 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP M.A.NO.47/IND/2010 (ARISIN G OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 471/IND/2006). -: 2: - 2 3. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED, 284 ITR 323. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO WITHDRAWAL OF ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 47(IV) READ WITH SECTION 47A WAS DECI DED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED (SUPRA), TH E CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 3.70 CRORES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED WITH TH E ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 47(IV) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. HAS BEEN RIGHTLY WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF THE ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AFORESTATED -: 3: - 3 SUBSIDIARIES HAD CEASED TO BE THE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DECISION ON THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5. IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE MUCH LESS THAN AN APPARENT MIS TAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SO AS TO R ECTIFY THE SAME BY AN ORDER U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. M.A.NO. 48/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 452/IND/2006): 6. IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALLEGED THAT WITH REGARD TO CLAI M OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 78,37,000/-, THE MATTER WAS RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE -: 4: - 4 AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. IT WAS PLEADED THA T ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REPORT OF THE AO AS TO WHY HE HAS MADE AN ADDITION ON THE ISSUE AND THE SAID O FFICE HAS ACCEPTED HIS MISTAKE THAT NO SUCH ADDITION SHOULD H AVE BEEN MADE AS NO CLAIM IS BEING MADE ON THIS AMOUNT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN GREAT DE TAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE AO WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. NOW IF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGES THAT NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN, THEN WHY HE IS PERTURBED BY THE MATTER REST ORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT MIST AKE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRIBUNAL. 8. NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ADDIT ION MADE WITH RESPECT TO V.R.S. CLAIM. 9. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF V.R.S. HAVING BEEN MADE E ARLIER AND THERE WAS NO CLAIM IN THIS YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FORM T HE AO WHO -: 5: - 5 HAVE AGREED TO THIS POSITION. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS AGAIN RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DISCUSSING T HE SUBMISSION OF THE AO AS PER HIS REPORT DATED 4 TH AUGUST, 2004. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHOULD VERIFY THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE MISC. PETITION SO FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE MUCH LESS AN APPARENT MISTA KE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS AMENABLE TO SEC TION 254(2). IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED AND CONFINED TO RECTIFY ANY APPARENT MISTAKE ONLY. IN THE GUISE OF THIS APPLICA TION, THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO GET THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS HAVING NO MERIT. -: 6: - 6 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. CPU* 1319