Clarion India, Baroda v. The ACIT.,Circle-2,, Baroda

MA 159/AHD/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 15920524 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AACFC2662C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 159/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant Clarion India, Baroda
Respondent The ACIT.,Circle-2,, Baroda
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 22-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 22-01-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 08-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES D AHM EDABAD BEFORE S/ SHRI N.S.SAINI A.M & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH J.M. M.A.NO.159/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT ITA NO.1214 /AHD/2007 ASST.YEAR.2003-04 CLARION INDIA 511 RACE COURSE TOWER RACE COURSE VADODARA 390 007 PAN NO.AACFC2662C VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE-2 BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY: SH RI M.C. PANDIT SR.DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH J.M. BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RE-CALLING OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1214/AHD/2007 DATED 26-12-2008. 2. THE FIRST MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IS AS REGARDS TO GROUND OF APPEAL AT SERIAL NO.2 DEALI NG WITH THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WHICH IS TWO PARTS (1) DEALING WITH DEPB BENEFIT AND ALSO (2) CLAIM OF NETTING NOT BEING ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ON INTEREST. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF NETTING OF INTEREST HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNA L IN ITS ORDER. BUT THE GROUND REGARDING CLAIM OF DEPB BENEFIT OR ALLOWANCE U/S.80 HHC OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPB ENTITLEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH AND ACCORDINGLY WE RE-CALL THE ORDER. 4. AS REGARDS TO ANOTHER GROUND DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY PAYMENT MADE TO MRS. ROMI G MEHTA AND MRS. PALLAVIKA 2 G PATEL EACH OF THEM @ RS.60 000/- PER ANNUM LD. C OUNSEL STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY GIVING THE F INDING THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN RE GARD TO SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO LADIES. IN THIS RESPECT THE LD. COUN SEL FURTHER REFERRED TO PAPER BOOK FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND HE REFE RRED TO PAGES-1 TO 23 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH EXCLUSIVELY DEALT WITH THE CONSULTANCY PAID TO THESE TWO LADIES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT THE PAPER BOOK HAS AT ALL NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND THIS BEING A MISTAKE APPARENT F ROM THE RECORD THIS ISSUE BE RE-CALLED AND SHOULD BE HEARD AFRESH. AFTER GOING THROUGH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE FIND THAT THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESP ECT OF THE CONSULTANCY DONE BY THESE TWO LADIES HAVE NOT AT ALL BEEN CONSIDERE D BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY WE RECALL THESE TWO ISSUES IN RESPECT OF DEPB ENTIT LEMENT AND THE CLAIM OF THE CONSULTANCY PAID AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO RE-FIX THE APPEAL TO BE HEARD AFRESH ON THESE TWO ISSUES. ANOTHER CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE THIS APPEAL WAS NOT DISMISSED AND THIS WAS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. WE AGREE AS THE GROUND REGARDING NETTING HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEES MA IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES MA IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/01/2010. SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AHMEDABAD. DATE : 22/01/2010 DKP* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-II BARODA 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DR / AR ITAT AHMEDABAD