Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The CIT.,Ahmedabad III, Ahmedabad

MA 49/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4893 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KURIEN
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM. M.A. NO.49/AHD/2014 IN ITA NO. 1055/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR: 2007-08 NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT. LTD., NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. CIT-III, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAACN 5353L APPELLANT BY SHRI HIMANSHU SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/11/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/11/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1055/AHD/2012 FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 HAS BEEN FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING AS UNDER :- I. THAT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN ITA NO.L055/AHD/2012 PASSED BY HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, BENCH* A\ AHMEDABAD FOR ASST.YEAR: 2007-08, DTD. 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 APPELLANT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD GOING TO THE ROOT OF THIS ORDER RENDERING THE ALTER NATE FINDING ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED FOR T HE KIND CONSIDERATION OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. M.A. NO.49/AHD/2014 IN ITA NO. 1055/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 2 II. (A) VIDE DISCUSSION AT PARA 4 OF THE ORDER, HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S.!4A WAS BEFORE THE LEARN ED A.O. BUT DISALLOWANCE U/S.!4A WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY HIM WITH REGARD TO ADMINISTRA TIVE EXPENSES OF RS.79,28,153 IN HIS COMPUTATION. (B) IN THE ABOVE CONNECTION, MAY WE MAY BRING TO YO UR HONOUR'S KIND ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF LNCOME-TAX ACT WA S, IN FACT, MADE FOR RS.81,59,951 IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES OTHER THAN INTEREST VIDE DISCUS SION AT PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OFLNCOME-TAX ACT. III. (A) VIDE DISCUSSION AT PARA 4 OF THE ORDER, HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE LEARNED A.O. DID NOT VERIFY THE NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST RS.7 ,10,445 AS PER AUDIT REPORT, WHO HAS ALSO NOT VERIFIED THE CREDIT AND DEBIT OF THIS ACCO UNT. (B) WITH DUE RESPECT, WE MAY BRING TO YOUR HONOUR'S KIND ATTENTION THAT THE ABOVE FINDING IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE AMOUNT OF RS.7, 10,445 WAS DEBITED TO PREVIOUS YEAR ADJUSTMENT. THE COPY OF PREVIOUS YEAR INCOME ACCOUN T IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. ANNEXURE: 'A' PERUSAL OF THE SAID ACCOUNT WILL SHOW THAT AMOUNT O F RS.7,10,445 IS ONLY CREDIT TRANSACTION WHICH SHOWS INCOME. THIS INCOME WAS OFF ERED FOR TAXATION AND ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IV. (A) VIDE DISCUSSION AT PARA 4 OF THE ORDER, HO N'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX (STT) PAID BY THE APPELLANT AND CLA IMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LD.A.0. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. (B) STT RS.38,02,722 WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 11,65,29,419 WAS TAKEN, WHICH WAS AS PER RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, STT RS.78,524 WAS ALREADY DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR HO NOUR TO MODIFY THE ABOVE ORDER SUITABLY. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THIS PETI TION, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, APPROPRIATE ORDER MAY BE PASSED THEREON, FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN GRATEFUL, 2. AT THE OUTSET LD. AR REQUESTED FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 3. LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION. M.A. NO.49/AHD/2014 IN ITA NO. 1055/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 3 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE A CCORD THE PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE MISC. APPLICATION TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS REJECTED AS W ITHDRAWN. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 18/11/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD M.A. NO.49/AHD/2014 IN ITA NO. 1055/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 18/11/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 18/11/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 18/11/2016 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: