DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI v. PANTHER INVESTRADE LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 243/MUM/2014 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 24319914 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAACP3259R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 243/MUM/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI
Respondent PANTHER INVESTRADE LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 09-01-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.243/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE DCIT CEN.CIR.40 ROOM NO.653 6 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN MK ROAD MUMBAI -20. / VS. M/S. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED RADHA BHAVAN 1 ST FLOOR 121-NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD MUMBAI 400 0 23. ! ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACP 3259R ( !# / APPELLANT ) .. ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY SHRI N.K.CHAND ' ( / DATE OF HEARING : 16/06/2015 ' ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/07/2015 / O R D E R PER G.S.PANNU A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AN D IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/10/2013 OF THE CIT(A)- 38 MUMBAI PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/10/2002 PASSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL ALTHOUGH REVENUE HAS RAISED MULT IPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT . / ITA NO.243/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 2 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 20/09/2012 WAS BEYOND JURISDICTION. 3. IN BRIEF THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 31/10/2002 WHEREIN THE TO TAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.10 76 54 900/- AS AGAINST THE RETU RNED INCOME OF RS.78 59 520/-. IT TRANSPIRES THAT CERTAIN RELIE FS WERE ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) AND WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AO GRANTED REFUND OF RS.42 35 425/- WHICH INCLUDED INTEREST UNDER SECTIO N 244A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.15 82 504/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO NOTICED THAT THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS.19 03 221/- WAS INCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING INTEREST PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT WHEREAS ACC ORDING TO HIM SELF ASSESSMENT TAX IS NOT INCLUDIBLE WHILE COMPUTING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE AO PASSED A RECTIFICA TION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 15/3/2011 WHEREBY EXCESS INTEREST OF RS.9 97 018/- PAID TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 244 OF THE ACT WAS WIT HDRAWN. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BY POINTING OUT THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ALLOWABILITY OF INTE REST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT WAS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154 OF THE AC T AND FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD. 325 ITR 331(DEL) AND OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD. 29 4 ITR 438 (MAD) TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST ON THE SEL F ASSESSMENT TAX PAID EARLIER. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORT H BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BY MAKING FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS:- 6.0 I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING T HE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE . / ITA NO.243/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 3 DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES L TD. (325 ITR 331) AND THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHOLAMANDALAM INVE STMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD. (294 ITR 438) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FO R INTEREST ON THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID. WHERE THERE ARE DECISIONS OF T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER U/S 154 THEN THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IN SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY HELD THAT THE OR DER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. RIVAL STANDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ABOVE B ACKGROUND. FIRST AND FOREMOST IT HAS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT SECTION 154 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR RECTIFICATION OF SUCH MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. AS PER THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S.BALRAM ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS & ORS. 82 ITR 550 (SC) THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM TH E RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON THE POINT ON WHI CH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. IT IS ALSO A WELL SETTLED PROPOS ITION THAT THE EXPRESSION MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WOULD NOT COVER AN ISSUE WHICH IS DEBATABLE. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT CONTROVER SY BEFORE US LD. CIT(A) HAS POINTED OUT THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE DELHI AND MADR AS HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES OF SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA) AND CHOLAMAN DALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD.(SUPRA) RESPECTIVELY TO SUPPORT TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT CAN BE GRANT ED ON THE AMOUNT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID ALSO. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS . CIT 373 ITR 282 (BOM) WHEREIN INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE PAYABLE ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID. . / ITA NO.243/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 4 6.1 CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN HOLDING THAT THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE R ECTIFIED BY THE AO BY PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS N OT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDI NG THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AS BEING BEREFT OF JUR ISDICTION. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/07/2015 ' - ./ 31/07/2015 ' SD/- SD/- ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( . . / G.S.PANNU ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; . DATED 31/07/2015 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. 34 $56 ( 56 / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. 7 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER %3 $ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI . . ./ VM SR. PS