DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI v. PRAGATI CHEMICALS, MUMBAI

ITA 4962/MUM/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 496219914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAAFP4497L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4962/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI
Respondent PRAGATI CHEMICALS, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 26-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 31-07-2014
Next Hearing Date 31-07-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 02-08-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4962/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DCIT 12(2) R. NO. 134 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD. MUMBAI VS. M/S. PRAGATI CHEMICAL 206 MADHU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MOGRA ROAD ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI- 400 069 PAN:AAAFP 4497 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAYUR KISNADWALA REVENUE BY : SHRI PERMANA ND J. DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 11 . 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 26 . 1 1 .2014 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST ORDER DATED 11.05.2012 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) -23 MUMBAI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y . 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN HOLDIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO REDUCE ITS RETURNED INCOME WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN.' 2. 'LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT HON'BLE SU PREME COURT ORDER IN GOETZE INDIA LTD. VS. CIT(SC) 284 ITR 323 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACTS THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT TH E ASSESSING ITA NO. 4962/MUM/2012 M/S. PRAGATI CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO ACCEPT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF REDUCING ITS RETURNED INCOME WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME.' 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN BY HOLDING THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A DEDUCTION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHEREAS THIS IS A CASE WHER E THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO WITHDRAW AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED AND OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS DEEMED CAPITAL GAIN U/S. 54EC(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT ASS ESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.06.2009 U/S 139(1) BY WAY OF ELECTRONIC FILING SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.77 00 893/- WHICH COMPR ISED OF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.(-)10 81 861/- SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.16 22 716/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.71 59 563/-. IN THE CO URSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED STA TEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AT RS.27 65 340/- THEREBY REDUCING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO RS.21 59 538/- FROM RS.71 79 538/-. THE MAIN REASON FOR FILING THE REVISED STATEMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVEST ED SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS IN THE BOND OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORA TION LTD. AS PER UNDER SECTION 54 EC. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO TECHNIC AL ERROR IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM WHILE THE COMPUTER TOOK UPLOADING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE SAME AMOUNT AS AMOUNT DEEMED TO BE CAPI TAL GAIN U/S 54 B TO 54GA INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE EFFEC T OF THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME GOT INCREASED BY RS.50 LAKHS EVEN THO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAD CALCULATED THE TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N AT RS.21 59 538/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICA TION U/S 154 ON 30.08.2011 BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OF FICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE S HOULD HAVE REVISED THE RETURN IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE ITA NO. 4962/MUM/2012 M/S. PRAGATI CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 INDIA LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 284 ITR 323 . ACCORDINGLY HE CALCULATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.71 59 538/-. 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THE ENTIRE FACTS WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA 2.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. LD.CIT(A) AFTER VERIFYING THE COPY OF THE RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 EC HELD TH AT ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY MADE THE CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND T HERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE TIME OF FILING THEREFOR E THERE WAS NO FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS AND THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE RULING OF SC IN GOETZE INDIA LTD. AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLAN T MADE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC STATING THAT A CLAIM CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED A REVISED RETURN. IT IS SEEN FROM THE COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD ALREADY MADE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN SCHEDULE CG- CAPITAL GAINS UNDER COL. B -LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN UNDER SUB COL 3 D CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54EC. HOWEVER T HE SAME AMOUNT IS ALSO ENTERED AGAINST COL 5 OF SCHEDULE CG WHICH INDICATES THE SAME FIGURE AS AMOUNT DEEMED TO BE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTIONS 54B/54D/54EC/54G/54GA. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THIS IS DUE TO A COMPUTER ERR OR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE APPLICATION FOR REC TIFICATION U/S 154 WHICH CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO MAKE A CLAIM IN THE RETURN AND IS MAKING A FRESH CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT FI LING A REVISED RETURN. THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY MADE A CLAIM IN H IS ORIGINAL RETURN WHICH WAS ALSO TAKEN UNDER ANOTHER HEAD AS STATED ABOVE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DECISION OF GOET ZE WILL NOT APPLY SINCE THE SAID DECISION STATES THAT CLAIM FOR A DEDUCTION NOT MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCT ION U/S 54EC AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. ITA NO. 4962/MUM/2012 M/S. PRAGATI CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PA RTIES AND ALSO ON THE PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD WE FI ND THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.21 59 538/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54EC. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN IN THE BONDS SPECIFIED U/S 54EC FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTI ON. THE INVESTMENT IN THE BONDS HAS BEEN MADE MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CERTIFICATE OF TH E BOND ANNEXED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD.CIT(A) HAD ALREADY NOTED THE FIN DING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL GAIN IN COLUMN B OF THE RETURN OF INCOME IN ITR-5. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IN GROUNDS THAT SUCH A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE REVISED RETURN IS NOT TENABLE. THE FINDING AND OBSERVATIONS GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THESE FA CTS ARE LEGALLY CORRECT AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THUS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 26.11.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH ITA NO. 4962/MUM/2012 M/S. PRAGATI CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 5 //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.