Mayur Dyechem Intermediates Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

MA 73/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4779 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH SRDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.73/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT WITH ITA NO.847/AHD/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1996-97 DATE OF HEARING:27.8.10 DRAFTED::27.8 .10 M/S. MAYUR DEYCHEM INTERMEDIATES LTD., 1/106, GIDC, PHASE-II, VATVA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AABCM9608M V/S . ASSTT, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) (ORIGINA L APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI TUSHAR P HEMANI, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI K.M.MAHESH, SR-DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECTIFYING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.847/AHD/2005 DATED 07-08-2009. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS MA THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, HAS NOTED O N PAGE-3 PARA-6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- WE FIND THAT THE PLEA OF BOTH THE PARTIES IS REASO NABLE, IN PRINCIPLE, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AS INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS, I. E. ACCOUNTING YEAR 1992-93 TO 1994-95, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN THOSE YEARS. IN CASE THE INCOME IS NOT OFFERED IN THOSE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. IN VIEW OF THIS DIRECTION, ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND ALLOW IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE DIRECTION. MA NO.73/AHD/2010 (A/O ITA NO.847/AHD/2005) A.Y.96-97 M/S. MAYUR DYECHEM INTERMEDIATES LTD. V. ACIT, CIR -4, ABD PAGE 2 ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL THERE IS AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD INASMUCH AS THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCE OF EXCISE EXPENSES ON THE BASI S OF PAYMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN FACT IN PARA-5 OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER, THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCE OF EXCISE DUTY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAME AS INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER WHILE GIVING THE FINAL DIRECTIONS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS INADVERTENTLY ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN THESE YEARS INSTEAD OF GIVING DIRECTIO NS FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THE PLEA WITH THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE AND THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN TH E ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. HERE, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS FOR CURRENT YEAR, I.E . 1996-97 AND THE SAME MAY BE NOTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE WORDS IN THAT PARA IN THO SE YEARS BE READ AS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION .ACCORDINGLY THIS MA OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE MA IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/08 /2010 SD/- SD/- (A.N. PHAUJA) (MAH AVIR SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 27/08/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD