HELIOUS FOOD ADDITIVES P. LTD, v. ACIT 10(2),

MA 298/MUM/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 29819924 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACH2764D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 298/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant HELIOUS FOOD ADDITIVES P. LTD,
Respondent ACIT 10(2),
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'H' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 298/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2731/MUM/2007) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) HELIOS FOOD ADDITIVES P. LTD. A C I T 10(2) 42 SWASTIK CHAMBERS MUMBAI CHEMBUR MUMBAI 400071 VS. PAN - AAACH 2764 D APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SHRI DURGESH NADKARNI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.P. TRIVEDI DATE OF HEARING: 22/07/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/07/2011 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 2731/MUM/2007 BY THE ITAT H BENCH DATED 20 TH AUGUST 2009. 2. IN THE APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS: - 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING INCOME OF RS.1 20 67 928/- FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC OF THE IT ACT 1961. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING INCOME O F RS.1 20 67 928/- FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE IT ACT 1961. 5. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE NOT PREJUDICIAL TO ONE ANOTHER. 3. IT WAS THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH AUGUST 2009 CONSIDERED ONLY GROUND 3 AND HAS NOT D ISPOSED OFF GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 AND ALSO RECORDED WRONGLY LEARNED COUNSE LS SUBMISSION THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED A ND NOT BOTH THE DEDUCTIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY. ON PARA 12 OF THE ORDE R ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - MA NO . 298/MUM/2010 HELIOS FOOD ADDITIVES P. LTD. 2 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAD MERELY SUBMITTED AT THE MOST T HE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC MAY BE REDUCED FROM GROSS TOTA L INCOME AND THEREAFTER DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IS REQUIRED TO B E ALLOWED. HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HOWEVER MISUNDERSTOOD THIS SUB MISSION OF THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL AND TREATED AS IF GROUNDS O F APPEAL NO. 4 AND 5 ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY HON'BLE TRIBUNA L HAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 AND 5 AND DECIDED GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 ONLY. 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A COM PILATION OF CASE LAWS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL. THERE WERE JUDGEMENTS HAVE BEEN CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION B OTH U/S. 80HHC AND 80IB. AS A MATTER OF FACT THESE TWO DEDUC TIONS OPERATE IN SEPARATE FIELDS AND ARE NOT INTERCONNECT ED AT ALL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE DOES NOT ARISE ANY QUESTION OF THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL HAVING STATED THAT DEDUCTIO N U/S. 80HHC CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED AND NOT BOTH THE DEDUCTIO NS SIMULTANEOUSLY. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL MAY KINDLY BE RECTIFIED AND ASSESSEE BE GRANTED RELIEF UNDER SECT ION 80IB AS IT IS ENTITLED BOTH ON FACTS AND ALSO ON LAW. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND ALSO FILE D AN AFFIDAVIT ON RECORD STATING WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. HOWEVER DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CO NTENTIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED C OUNSEL EXAMINING THE AFFIDAVIT AND PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 AS ONLY GROUND NO. 3 WAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL F ILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ONLY GROUND N O. 3 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH. THE LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT TH E AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A) DISPUTE WAS NOT ABOUT ELIGIBILITY BUT OF QUANTIFICATION OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IB. IN VIEW OF THIS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE I TAT HAS TO BE RECALLED TO THAT EXTENT AND REHEARD FOR CONSIDERING GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 WHICH WERE NOT MA NO . 298/MUM/2010 HELIOS FOOD ADDITIVES P. LTD. 3 DISPOSED OF EARLIER. THE ORDER IS RECALLED TO THAT EXTENT. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE CASE IN DUE COURSE OF TIME. 7. IN THE RESULT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 29 TH JULY 2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) X MUMBAI 4. THE CIT X MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR H BENCH ITAT MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI N.P.