ACIT-2(3), MUMBAI v. M/S. RAYMONDS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2160/MUM/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 216019914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACR4896A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2160/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant ACIT-2(3), MUMBAI
Respondent M/S. RAYMONDS LTD., MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-05-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 06-04-2009
Judgment Text
ITA NO.2160/M/09 RAYMONDS 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AN D SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN(JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A NO. 2160/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 THE ACIT 2(3) APPELLANT AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI. VS. RAYMONDS LTD. NEW HIND HOUSE NAROTTAM MORARJEE MARG BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI. PA NO.AAACR 4896 A RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.K PAHWA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.P.TRIVEDI/MS V.B. PATEL O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 12.1.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. F OLLOWING GRIEVANCES HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR YEARS ADJUSTMENT OF ` .1 17 87 000/- EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/ S.115JB. 2. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DECIDING THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO( RELYING ON THE DEFINITION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT ANY SUCH DEDUCTION. 3. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF ` .3 75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING THE RESERVE CREATED FOR REDEMPTION OF DEBE NTURE AS PART OF BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB. THE LD CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FINDINGS BR OUGHT ON RECORDS BY THE AO RELYING ON EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 115JB(2) AS PER WHICH THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BOOK PROFIT. ITA NO.2160/M/09 RAYMONDS 2 2. APROPOS GROUND NOS.1 & 2 LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE S FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-2 001 AND 2001-02 VIDE ORDER DATED 1.5.2009. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE NEVE RTHELESS RELIED UPON THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 WE FIND THAT AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION DATED 1. 5.2009 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE SEVENTH DISPUTE WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR A.Y. 2000 -2001 AND 2001-02 IS REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS TMENT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. THE AO HAD ADDED THE PRIOR PERIOD EXP ENSES TO THE NET PROFIT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT BUT IN APPEAL CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE YEAR ENDING MARCH 98 WHICH WEE DEB ITED IN THE IMMEDIATE SUCCEEDING YEAR. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THIS I SSUE WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION VIDE PARA 2.10.2 OF THIS ORDER WE HOLD THAT ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED UND ER THE COMPANIES ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. THE ORDER OF CIT (A) DE LETING THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS POINT THUS STANDS DISMISSED. WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE CONFIRM THE CIT (A)S DECISION WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. NO INTERFERENCE IN THIS REGARD IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 THUS STAND DISMISSED. 4. AS REGARDS GROUND NOS.3 & 4 LEARNED REPRESENTAT IVES FAIRLY AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION DATED 1.5.2009 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE WHEREIN A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE NINTH DISPUTE WHICH IS RELEVANT ONLY FOR A.Y. 2 001-02 IS REGARDING ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF DEBENTURE REDEMPTION RESE RVE WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO WE HAVE ALREADY DE ALT WITH WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.YT. 1999-2000 AND 2000-2001. WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE A. Y. 1999-2000 AND 2000- 2001. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION TAKEN IN P ARA 2.12.1 OF THIS ORDER EARLIER WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T (A) DELETING THE ADDITION AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE CONFIRM THE CIT (A)S DECISION WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE ITA NO.2160/M/09 RAYMONDS 3 WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. NO INTERFERENCE IN THIS REGARD IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 THUS STAND DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXX MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH D MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI ITA NO.2160/M/09 RAYMONDS 4