GMR Highways Limited, Bengaluru V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

MA 50/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8900 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL JAIN
• Section: 143(3)

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. 50/Bang/2022 (in ITA No. 495/Bang/2020) Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. GMR Highways Ltd., No. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore – 560 025. PAN: AADCG9020E Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3 (1)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sunil Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04-11-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present miscellaneous petition arises out of consolidated order dated 25/05/2022 passed by this Tribunal. 2. The Ld.AR submitted that Ground no. 6 was inadvertently missed out to be adjudicated that reads as under: “Ground VI: Addition of Rs.2,79,66,865/- based on comparison of amount of service tax receivable: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.2,79,66,865/- based on comparison of amount of service tax receivable as on March 31st 2015 of Rs. 2,79,66,865/- and the amount of service tax receivable as on March 31st 2016 of Rs. Nil in the assessment order Page 2 of 4 M.P. No. 50/Bang/2022 (in ITA No. 495/Bang/2020) dated December 31 ,2018 passed U/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. He failed to appreciate that: 1) The amount of Rs.2,79,66,685/- represents the amount of Service Tax which was paid by the Appellant and was thus shown as Service Tax Input Credit to be adjusted against any Service Tax Output liability in future; 2) Subsequently, during the year said amount was charged/debited to the profit and loss account under the heading "Prior Period expenses"; and 3) The said amount of "Prior period expenses of Rs. 2,79,66,865/- was not claimed deduction in the return of income but the same was considered for disallowance and added back in the computation of Income/return of income. 3. The Appellant therefore prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the addition of Rs.2,79,66,685/- which is already considered for disallowance / addition by the appellant in the computation of total income.” 3. He submitted that, as this particular ground was not separately appearing in the synopsis filed by the assessee. It is submitted that this ground was inadvertently missed to be adjudicated. The Ld.AR submitted the following in respect of the above ground as under: 4. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had filed petition for admission of additional evidence before this Tribunal dated 15/12/2020 wherein all the supporting documents in respect of the provision for prior period expenses were placed. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the claim of assessee, did not verify all the additional evidences because of which he came to the conclusion that the provisions were claimed as expenses which was not debited to P&L A/c. He submitted that assessee had provided for expenses for the year under consideration and the amount was reflected as receivable and charged to the P&L account under the head “prior period expenses” which was disallowed and added back in the Page 3 of 4 M.P. No. 50/Bang/2022 (in ITA No. 495/Bang/2020) computation of income suomoto. Referring to page 37 of the paper book, the Ld.AR submitted that the entire amount of Rs.2,79,66,685/- has been added back. It is submitted that disallowance of the same amount again would lead to double addition. 6. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that this submission requires verification as in the form 3CED Col.No. 27B does not reveal the same. 7. The Ld.AR fairly agree for the issue to be remanded for due verification. Considering the above submissions by both sides, we direct the Ld.AO to verify the claim of assessee and in the event if it is found that the same has been added back as income in the hands of the assessee suomoto in the computation, no disallowance is to be made. On this count, with this observation, we remit this issue to the Ld.AO for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the M.P. filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 th November, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 07 th November, 2022. /MS / Page 4 of 4 M.P. No. 50/Bang/2022 (in ITA No. 495/Bang/2020) Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore