Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd.,, Bharuch v. The Jt.CIT.,Spl.Range-2,, Baroda

MA 100/AHD/2008 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10020524 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACN6804E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 100/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd.,, Bharuch
Respondent The Jt.CIT.,Spl.Range-2,, Baroda
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 16-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 16-02-2012
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 30-04-2008
Judgment Text
-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI D K TYAGI - JM AND SHRI A MOHAN ALANKAMONY - AM M A NO.100/AHD/2008 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.769/AHD/2003] (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-1998-99) NARMADA CHEMATUR PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS LTD.) NARMADANAGAR BHARUCH V/S THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SPECIAL RANGE-2 BARODA PAN: AAACN 6804 E [APPLICANT] [ORIGINAL APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] [ORIGINAL RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI SANJAY R SHAH AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI VINOD TANWANI SR. DR DATE OF HEARING:- 20-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 16-02-2012 O R D E R PER D K TYAGI (JM) :- BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLING / RECTIFYING T HE ORDER DATED 31-08-2007 PASSED BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH-C IN ITA NO.769/AHD/2003 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2 IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 2 1. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS PREFERRED U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE APPARENT F ROM THE RECORD CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO. 357/AHD/2003 & 769/AHD/2003 AS SET OUT BELOW. 2. IN THE ABOVE APPEAL THE APPLICANT HAD FILED ADDI TIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL REGARDING PRO FIT OF THE BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE COMPUTATION OF DE DUCTION OF EXPORT PROFITS FROM THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA OF TH E ACT. 3. IN THE ORDER NOW RECEIVED IT IS NOTED THAT INADV ERTENTLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS REMAINED TO BE ADJUDICATED UP ON. 4. THE APPLICANT REPRODUCES THE ADDITIONAL GROUND O F APPEAL FOR READY REFERENCE AS UNDER: 'THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DISPOSING GROU ND NO. 8.6 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH INTERALIA S TATES THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO TAX UNDER PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 115JA OF THE I. T. ACT BOOK PROFIT SHOULD BE TREATED AS PROFIT OF BUSINESS FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80HHC AND THEREBY ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS U/S. 80HHC ON BOOK PROFIT WHIL E COMPUTING INCOME U/S. 115JA OF THE I.T. ACT. APPELL ANT SUBMITS THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON T HE BOOK PROFIT. IT BE SO HELD NOW.' IT IS STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS ALSO MA DE A PART OF THE CHART ENCLOSED WITH THE PAPER BOOK FILED VIDE LETTE R DATED 17/4/2007. FURTHER ATTENTION OF HON'BLE BENCH WAS A LSO DRAWN TO THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MA DE IN THE CHART DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE ABOVE APP EAL OF THE APPLICANT 5. FURTHER AT PARA 13 OF THE ABOVE ORDER THE HON'B LE TRIBUNAL HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE MISC. EXPENSES. THE DECISION AT PARA 13 IS AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. WE FEEL THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT 3 DISBELIEVED THE EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH EY ONLY MADE ADDITION ON AD HOC BASIS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ID. COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE FAIRLY AGREED FOR A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 0 0 000/- INSTEAD OF RS.4 00 000/- MADE BY THE C1T(A). WE FAI RLY FEEL THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS QUITE REASONA BLE AND HENCE WE ACCEPT THIS PLEA. ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED.' 6. IN THIS RESPECT THE APPLICANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THA T AT THE TIME OF HEARING THERE WAS NO SUCH CONSENT GIVEN BY THE AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THOUGH IT WAS INDICATED BY THE HON'B LE BENCH THAT THEY WOULD RESTRICT DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3 00 00 0/-. 7. APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE BEING MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO RECTIFY THE SAME BY PASSING SUITABLE ORDER U/S 254 OF THE IT ACT AND O BLIGE. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT WILL FO REVER REMAIN GRATEFUL. 3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING ITS ORDER DATED 31-08-2007. THE SAID GROUND IS REPRODUCED ABOVE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS SUBMI SSION THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE CHA RT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEA RING WHEREIN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN UP WAS ALSO MENTIONED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR RECA LLING OF THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2007 FOR DECIDING THE SAID ADDITI ONAL GROUND. 4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2007 THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE 4 APPARENT FROM RECORD AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE TO THIS EXTENT THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2007 IS HEREBY RECALLED TO DE CIDE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND ONLY. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE. 5 THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHILE DECIDIN G THE ISSUE REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE MISC. EXPENSE S. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HEL D IN PARA-13 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER - IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY AGREED FOR A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 00 000/- INSTEAD OF RS.4 00 000/- MADE BY THE C1T(A). WHICH IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM AT THE TIME OF HEARING THERE WAS NO SUCH CONSENT GIVEN BY THE AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 6 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE R ECORDS WE FEEL NO NEED TO MODIFY OUR ORDER AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE DID NOT GIVE HIS CONSENT FOR DISALLOWANCE O F RS.3 00 000/- HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION. 5 7 IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 16-02-2012 SD/- SD/- (A MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (D K TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 16-02-2012 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. NARMADA CHEMATUR PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (NOW MERGE D WITH GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS LTD.) NARMADANAGAR BHARUCH 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SPECIAL RA NGE-2 BARODA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-VI BARODA 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH-C AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD