GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, v. ADDL CIT RG 2(3),

MA 765/MUM/2012 | 1996-1997
Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 76519924 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAACC4464B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 765/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,
Respondent ADDL CIT RG 2(3),
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 04-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 04-10-2013
Assessment Year 1996-1997
Appeal Filed On 18-12-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 765 & 766/MUM/2012 ( ARISING FROM ITA NO. 5628 & 5629/MUM/2002 A. Y 19 96-97 & 1997-98 ) GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION 91 SAKHAR BHAWAN 230 NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-21 VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR. 6(3) MUMBAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACC4464B ASSESSEE BY SHRI J. D MISTRI & MADHUR AGRAWAL REVENUE BY SHRI PITAMBAR DAS DATE OF HEARING 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4 TH OCTOBER 2013 ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSES SEE IS SEEKING RATIFICATION IN THE ORDER DATED 16.5.2012 O F THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE TWO SETS OF CROSS APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON R ECORD. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER S OME OF THE GROUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO. 1 HAS FOUR SUB GROUNDS NAMELY A B C & D. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO. 1 HAS NO T DISPOSED OFF MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 2 GROUND 1(C) IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES ON STATUTORY /COST AUDITORS. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 1994-95 AND 1995-96. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE FIND THAT IN PARA 6 THOUGH IT IS MENTIONED AS GROUND 1(C) GROUND 1(C) GROUND 1(C) GROUND 1(C) HOWEVER THE FINDING UNDER SAID PARA IS IN RESPECT OF GROUND 1(D) GROUND 1(D) GROUND 1(D) GROUND 1(D) THEREFORE THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN NON-ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO. 1(C) AND ME NTIONING IN- CORRECT GROUND IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE HEADING OF PARA 6 MAY BE READ AS GROUND NO. 1(D) GROUND NO. 1(D) GROUND NO. 1(D) GROUND NO. 1(D). 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1(C) WE NOTE THAT AN IDENT ICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 1994-95 AND 1995-96. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATE D AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PARA 6.6 AND 6.7 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. AS IT IS CLEAR FRO M THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 THAT THE E XPENSES ON STATUTORY/COST AUDITORS HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FULL. F OLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES ON STATUTORY/COST AUDITORS IN FULL. THIS GROUND IS COMMON FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND ACCORD INGLY DISPOSED OFF. MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 3 4. THE LD. COUNSEL THEN POINTED OUT THAT GROUND NO. 9.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF WHICH I S IN THE NATURE OF ALTERNATIVE PLEA. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 16 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THE GROUND NO. 9.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND THE GROUND NO. 9.2 WHICH IS AN ALTERNATI VE PLEA HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO. 9.2 IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION OF TH IS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-9 5 AND 1995-96 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE FIND THAT IN PARA 16 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEING 9.1 AND 9.2 HOWEVER IN PARA 16.2 THE ISSUE O F DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND ACCORDINGLY TH E GROUND NO. 9.1 WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ALTERNATIVE P LEA RAISED IN GROUND NO. 9.2 REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL T URNOVER IS REMAINED UN ADJUDICATED. WE NOTE THAT FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1995-96 THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THI S ISSUE IN PARA 27.4 AND 27.5 AS UNDER: 27.4 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 24 THE ITAT IN AY 1994-95 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) DEALT WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 22 TO 22.2 WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 22. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 28 AND 29 ARE AS UNDER: 28. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDER THAT DEDU CTION U/S. 8OHHC OF THE ACT IS TO BE COMPUTED BY CONSIDERING A LL UNITS OF THE APPELLANT AS A WHOLE IS UPHELD THEN T HE CIT(A) MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 4 ERRED IN INCLUDING INTER-UNIT AND INTER-DIVISIONAL TRANSFERS OF RS. 338.41 CRORES AS PART OF TOTAL TURNOVER WHICH RESULTS IN THE SAME FIGURE BEING COUNTED AS A NUMBER OF TIMES AND HENCE DEPRIVING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 8OHHC. 29. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 8OHHC OF THE ACT BE COMPUT ED ON THE BASIS OF CONSIDERING ALL UNITS WHICH HAD EXPORT S TOGETHER. 22.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR A.YS. 19 86-87 TO 1989-90 ORDER DATED 22 ND MARCH 2007 AT PARA 154 OF THE ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THERE ARE TWO AS PECTS INVOLVED. ONE ASPECT IS REGARDING EXCLUSION OF INTE R DIVISION TRANSFER FROM TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTI NG DEDUCTION U/S. 8OHHC. SECOND ASPECT IS REGARDING EXCLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY FROM TOTAL TURNOVER FOR TH E SAME PURPOSE. SECOND ASPECT OF THE MATTER REGARDING EXCLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY FROM TOTAL TURNOVER FOR COMPUTING DEDUC TION U/S. 8OHHC IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REND ERED IN THE CASE SUDARSHAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. (SU PRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE MATTER I.E. REGA RDING EXCLUSION OF INTER-DIVISION TRANSFER FROM TOTAL TUR NOVER WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A. Y. 1990-91 TO 1992-93. I N PARA NO. 152 OF THE JUDGEMENT THIS HAS BEEN HELD B Y THE TRIBUNAL THAT INTER-DIVISION TRANSFER HAS TO BE EXCLUDED AS THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION IN THE FIGURE OF TOTAL TURNOVER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH IS JUDGEMENT THIS ASPECT OR THE MATTER IS ALSO DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND NO. 26(U) STAND S ALLOWED. 22.2 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE INT ER- DIVISION TRANSFER FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER. MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 5 27.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED TO BE ACCEPTED. GROUND NO. 24 IS ALLOWED. 6. FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE DECIDE THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA REGARDING REDUCTION OF INTER DIVIS IONAL TRANSFER FROM TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80HHC IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS COMMON IN BOTH THE YEARS A ND ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OFF. 7. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 SOME OTHER GROUN DS ARE ALSO STATED TO HAVE NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF. 8. GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING TO ALLOWABILITY OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 INVOLVES THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. WE FIND THAT THE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1997-98 REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 6-97 A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND N O. 16 WHICH HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 44 TO 44.4 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST TH E REVENUE. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 THIS GROUNDS STANDS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 6 9. THE GROUND NO. 7 IS ALSO STATED TO BE NOT DISPOS ED OFF. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE GROUND NO. 7 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1997-98 REMAINS UNADJUDICATED. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IN PARA 32.5 T O 32.11 AS UNDER: 32.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. BOTH THE PARTIES BEF ORE US AGREED ON THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER THE ONLY DISPUTE THAT EMERGES IS THAT IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT BY CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THE BRIDGE BUILT BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR REPLACING ANNUAL RECURRING EXPENSES TOWARDS PIL ING UP OF CEMENT BAGS TO PREVENT SEA WATER ENTERING INTO THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DURING RAINY SEASON THE ASSESSEE D ERIVED BENEFIT OF AN ENDURING NATURE WHEREAS AS PER THE A SSESSEE THE CONTRIBUTION IS TOWARDS REPLACEMENT OF THE RECU RRING REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH GOES TO THE REVENUE FIEL D ONLY. NOW LET US EXAMINE THE ISSUE WITH THE HELP OF CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. 32.6 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFA CTURING CO LTD REPORTED IN 219 ITR 521 (SC) A COMPANY WAS AMALGAMATED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IN THAT CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITUR E TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL CHARGES PAID TO SOLICITORS WHICH WAS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE REVENUE AU THORITIES DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED WAS IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AN D THEREFORE DEDUCTIBLE AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT FOLLOWED THEIR OWN DECISION REPORTED IN 125 ITR 293 (SC). IN OUR OPINION THIS JUDGMENT SUPPORTS TH E CASE ON HAND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 32.7 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD 122 ITR 995 (BOM) THE ASSESSEE A MANUFACTURER OF CHEMICALS SET UP A NEW UNIT AND REQUIRED A LARGE QUANTITY OF ELECTRICA L ENERGY WHICH HAD TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE ELECTRICITY BOARD . THE ELECTRICITY BOARD CHARGED THE ASSESSEE FOR THE OVER HEAD SERVICE LINE IN EXCESS OF 30 METRES. UNDER THESE FA CTS HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACQUIRE A NY CAPITAL MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 7 ASSET OR AN ENDURING BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE AND THE O BJECT OF MAKING THE PAYMENT WAS PURELY ONE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THIS JUDGEMENT ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE O N HAND. 32.8 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NAVSARI COTTON & SILK MI LLS LTD 135 ITR 546 (GUJ) THE ASSESSEE MADE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE MUNICIPALITY FOR PROVIDING A PIPELINE THROUGH THE M UNICIPAL LAND FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE EFFLUENTS DISCHARGED B Y THE COMPANY SO AS TO GUARD AGAINST HEALTH HAZARDS TO TH E CITIZENS WAS HELD TO BE A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT TOO SUPPORTS THE CASE O N OUR HAND. 32.9 IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT HAVE ANY OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OVER THE BRIDGE CONSTRU CTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED TOWA RDS PART OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE TO PREVENT THE SEA WATER ENTERING INTO THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH NATURALLY HURT THE COMMERCIAL INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS MAKING A CERTAIN REC URRING EXPENDITURE ANNUALLY IN PREVENTING THE SEA WATER EN TERING INTO ITS PREMISES. REPLACEMENT OF ANNUAL RECURRING EXPENDITURE BY ONE TIME CONTRIBUTION IS REVENUE EXP ENDITURE. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE EXPENDITU RE DID NOT BRING ANY CAPITAL ASSET OF AN ENDURING BENEFIT OR A DVANTAGE AND THE OBJECT OF MAKING THE PAYMENT WAS PURELY ONE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. . 32.10 BE THAT AS IT MAY BE LET US STEP INTO ANOTHE R ASPECT OF THE MATTER. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE WITHOUT CONSIDERING IT FOR DEPRECIATION. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT NO NEW ASSET CAME TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE S O CAPITALIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE INCOME-TA X ACT PROVIDES FOR WRITING OFF THE EXPENDITURE IN WHATEVE R FORM IT IS IN THE ACCOUNTS EITHER OVER THE YEARS OR IN THE YEA R OF INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. SO THIS ASPECT OF T HE MATTER ALSO GOES AGAINST THE REVENUE. NOW LET US ALSO EXAM INE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS LAID OUT FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED FOR A PART OF EXPENDITURE ON A BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT ACROSS A RIVER. THE ABSENCE OF THE BRIDG E CAUSED LOT OF INCONVENIENCE TO THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS TH AT DURING RAINY SEASON SEA WATER ENTERED INTO THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS INCURRING RECURRING EXPENDITURE EVERY YEAR TO PILE THE CEMENT BAGS TO S TOP THE SEA WATER ENTERING INTO ITS PREMISES. SO IT WAS SQU ARELY A NEED OF THE ASSESSEE TOO TO GET RID OF SUCH RECURRI NG INCONVENIENCE. IT IS NOT A CASE OF STASHING AWAY MO NEY WITH A VIEW TO AVOID THE TAX NET BUT A BENEVOLENT ACT; A BENEVOLENT ACT FOR HELPING OUT THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY TO MAKE BASIC MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 8 INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE PUBLIC WHERE THE CONTRIBUTO R TOO IS A BENEFICIARY. IN FACT WE NEED AND SHOULD LOOK FORWA RD FOR MORE OF THIS KIND OF ACTS. 32. 11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE WARDI NG OFF A RECURRING REVENUE EXPENDITURE BY ONE TIME CONTRIBUT ION RETAINS THE CHARACTER OF A REVENUE EXPENDITURE ONLY AND THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION B Y HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS PURELY ON REVENUE FI ELD. GROUND 5 OF THE REVENUE FAILS. FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. GROUND NO. 8 REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF ESI CONT RIBUTION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS SUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA 24 TO 26 OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACT AND THEREFORE THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 AND 1995-96 U/S 43B(B). THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION THEREFORE THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS PER SECTION 43B . 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEC IDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT WIT HIN THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACT AS STIPULA TED UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH CAN BE RECTIF IED U/S 254(2) QUA MA 765 & 766/M/2012 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 9 THE GROUND NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 12. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 IS ALLOWED AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 997-98 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ORDER PR ORDER PR ORDER PRONOUNCEMENT ONOUNCEMENT ONOUNCEMENT ONOUNCEMENT ON ON ON ON 4 44 4 TH THTH TH OCTOBER OCTOBER OCTOBER OCTOBER 2013 2013 2013 2013 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI: DATED: 4 TH OCTOBER 2013 SUBODH. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR ITAT MUMBAI