RUSAN PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI v. ADDL CIT 9(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6406/MUM/2014 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 640619914 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AABCR3179H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6406/MUM/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant RUSAN PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ADDL CIT 9(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 17-10-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.6406/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) RUSAN PHARMA LTD RUSAN HOUSE 58-D GOVT. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CHARKOP KANDIVALI (W) MUMBAI-67 VS ITO 93)(4) MUMBAI PAN : AABCR3179H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAKASH PANDIT RESPONDENT BY SHRI B.S. BIST (CIT DR) DATE OF HEARING : 29-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 -09-2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA AM: THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20 MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER CALLED CIT(A)] DA TED 03-07-2014 PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-03-2012 FOR A .Y. 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT INCOME OF RS. 24 550/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP DOES NOT QUALI FY FOR DEDUCTION U/S I0A/10B OF THE IT ACT 1961. 2 I.T.A. NO.6406/MUM/2014 REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT APPEALS FOR CONFIRMING TH AT INCOME OF RS. 24 550/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP DOES NO T QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S IOA/IOB OF THE IT ACT 1961 ARE W RONG INSUFFICIENT AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE S ON RECORD 3 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT AM OUNT OF RS. 11 21 155/- BEING SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF A T ANKLESHWAR UNIT & KANDLA UNIT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S IOA/IOB OF THE IT ACT 1961. 4 REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT APPEALS FOR CONFIRMING THA T AMOUNT OF RS. 11 21 155/- BEING SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF AT ANKLESHWAR UNIT & KANDLA UNIT DOES N OT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S IOA/IOB OF THE IT ACT 19 61 ARE WRONG INSUFFICIENT AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND E VIDENCES ON RECORD IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 14 78 358/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION & BROKERAGE BEING THE AMOUNT NOT QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A/10B OF THE IT ACT 1961. 6. REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT APPEALS FOR CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14 78 358/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION & BROKERAGE BEING THE AMOUNT NOT QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S IOA/IOB OF THE IT ACT 1961 ARE WRONG INSUFFICIENT AND CONTRARY TO THE FA CTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD 7 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17 16 620/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHA NGE VARIATION GAIN BEING THE AMOUNT NOT QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S IOAI10B OF THE IT ACT 1961. 8 REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT APPEALS FOR CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17 16 620/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE VARIATION GAIN BEING THE AMOUNT NOT QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S IOA/10B OF THE IT ACT 3 I.T.A. NO.6406/MUM/2014 1961 ARE WRONG INSUFFICIENT AND CONTRARY TO THE F ACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD 9 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH AT INCOME OF RS. 9 68 789/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPB INCENTI VE PERTAINING TO KANDLA UNIT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDU CTION U/S IOA/IOB OF THE IT ACT 1961. 10 REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT APPEALS FOR CONFIRMING THAT INCOME OF RS. 9 68 789/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPB INCENTI VE PERTAINING TO KANDLA UNIT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDU CTION U/S IOA/IOB OF THE IT ACT 1961 ARE WRONG INSUFFIC IENT AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 12 REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT APPEALS FOR CONFIRMING THAT INCOME OF RS. 17 16.620/- ON ACCOUNT OF MISCELLANEO US RECEIPTS PERTAINING TO KANDLA UNIT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S IOA/IOB OF THE IT ACT 1961 ARE WRONG INSUFFICIENT AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE S ON RECORD. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS STATED AT THE VERY OUTSET BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT MOST OF THE GROUNDS ARE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 (I TA NOS 59 & 8703/MUM/2011 & 1063 & 8691/MUM/2011 DATED 16-01-2014) AND ALSO O RDER FOR A.Y.2009-10 IN ITA NO.6802/MUM/2012 DATED 03-12-2014 AND REQUESTED TO FOLLOW THE SAME. 3. PER CONTRA THE LD. DR DID NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW. 4. THEREFORE AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE DECID E ALL THE GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 4.1 GROUNDS 1 & 2 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE THE REFORE THESE ARE DISMISSED. 4.2 GROUNDS 3 4 5 6 7 & 8 : WITH REGARD TO THESE GROUNDS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT SIMILAR ISSUES WERE INVOLVED I N THE EARLIER YEARS WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SENT THESE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE SAME AS PER THE DIRE CTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. LD. 4 I.T.A. NO.6406/MUM/2014 DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. 4.3 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS AND FIND THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL TO BE CORRECT. ACCORDI NGLY WE SEND THESE GROUNDS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJU DICATION AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR E ARLIER YEARS. THESE GROUNDS MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4.4 GROUNDS 9 & 10: IN THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE A CTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN NOT GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A/10B ON THE AMOUNT OF DEPB INCENTIVE PERTAINING TO KANDLA UNIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS ORDERS HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ARTS & CRAFTS EXPORTS LTD VS ITO 246 CTR 463 (BOM). THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 4.5 GROUNDS 11 & 12: IN THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THAT T HERE IS NO PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND THEREFORE THESE GROUNDS NEED FRESH ADJUDICATION. PER CONTRA THE LD. DR DI D NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. 4.6 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THIS ISSUE SPECIFICALLY. DEDUCTION U/S 10A / 10B WAS DENIED AT THE THRESHOLD. THE BENEFIT WAS DENIED AS PART OF TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS WITHOUT MAKING ANY SPECIFIC DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT. THE OTHER ISSUES HAVE ALSO BEEN S ENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND THIS ISSUE ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN PR OPER MANNER AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE 5 I.T.A. NO.6406/MUM/2014 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL MAY BE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DT : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2016 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE D-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES