The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. Liva Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 99/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5034 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

MA NO. 99 /AHD/201 6 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 11 - 12 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S.S. GODARA JM ] MA NO. 99 /AHD/201 6 (IN ITA NO. 2 792 /AHD/201 4 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 1 2 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD. . . . APPLICANT VS. LIVA HEALTHCARE LTD., . ... ... .. RESPONDENT ZYDUS TOWER, SATELLITE CROSS ROAD, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD. [P AN: AA A C L 0709 Q ] APPEARANCES BY: JAMES KURIAN FOR THE APPLICANT MUKESH M. SHAH FOR THE RESPONDENT DAT E OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 02 . 1 2 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNC ING THE ORDER : 06 . 1 2 . 2016 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM : 1. BY WAY OF TH IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT ASSESSING OFFICER POINTS OUT THAT THE TRIBUN AL , VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2015 WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS RS.10,20,763/ - AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD COMMIT TED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL . MA NO. 99 /AHD/201 6 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 11 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 3 2 . WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A GLARING MISTAKE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAX EFFECT BY THE APPLICANT ASSESSING O FFICER IN ASMUCH AS WHILE THE APPLICANT A SSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SURCHARGE @ 10%, THE APPLICATION OF SURCHARGE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WAS ONLY 7.5%. L EARNED C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ACTUAL TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN TH E APPEAL WAS RS.9,97,564/ - , AS AGAIN ST RS.10,20,763/ - COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ATTRIBUTED TO ADOPTING OF SURCHARGE @ 10% BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME APPLICATION OF SURCHARGE WAS ONLY 7.5%. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE FINANCE ACT 2010 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE APPLICABLE SURCHARGE RATE WAS 7.5%. I T IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE M ISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT IS ILL - CONCEIVED AS IT IS BASED ON WRONG CALCULATION. WE ARE THUS URGED TO DISMISS THE PRESENT APPLICATION FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALONE 3. WHEN THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY. HE , HOWEVER , RELIED UPON AND SUPPORTED T HE STAND OF THE APPLICANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION S AND ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS INDEED ILL - CONCEIVED AS IT RESTS ON THE ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION OF TAX EFF ECT. THE TAX EFFECT AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS FOLLOWS : - PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) TOTAL ADDITION DELETED BY CIT(A) 30,03,133 TAX @ 30% 9,00,939 ADD: SURCHARGE @ 10% 90,094 ADD: CESS @ 3% 29,730 TOTAL TAX 10,20,763 MA NO. 99 /AHD/201 6 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 11 - 12 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. HOWEVER, WHE N WE ADOPT THE SURCHARGE @ 7.5% AS APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASE OF DOMESTIC COMPANY HAVING TOTAL INCOME EXCEEDING RS.1 CRORE, THE CORRECT TAX EFFECT IS ONLY RS.9,97,564 / - AS COMPUTED BELOW : - PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) TOTAL ADDITION DELETED BY CIT(A) 30,03,133 TAX @ 30% 9,00,939 ADD: SURCHARGE @ 7.5 % 67,570 ADD: CESS @ 3% 29,730 TOTAL TAX 9,97,564 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS INDEED ILL - CONCEIVED AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH . WE , THEREFORE , DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS ABOVE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 6 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - S.S. GODARA PRAMO D KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 6 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2016. COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD