ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD., PANCHKULA

आदेश/ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh [(in short ‘CIT(A)]’ dated 28.09.2018 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), relating to assessment year 2012-13.

2 ITA No.1388/Chd/2018 A.Y.2013-14

“(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is not perverse in setting aside the issue and directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT whereas the issue of computation of book profit and MAT is pending before him vide order of Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No.l241/Chd/2017 dated 22.01.2018 ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of Ld.CIT(A) is not perverse in setting aside the issue and directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT without adjudicating all the facts which were available before him? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld CIT(A) is not perverse in setting aside the matter and directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT when as per section 251(1) of the Income tax Act, CIT(A) cannot be set aside to Assessing officer since that requires examination of supporting documents not on record? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not perverse in directing verification of a claim which involved the issue of deferred revenue expenditure, pending for adjudication before CIT(A), against an application by taxpayer u/s 154 rejected by AO and set aside by ITAT to CIT(A) which was pending for adjudication with him ? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld CIT(A) is not perverse in directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT when computation filed before CIT(A) involves claim which was not a part of the e-filed return and the report as per Rule 40B in form 29BB? (vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not perverse in directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT when the Hon'ble ITAT in this case has clearly held that

3 ITA No.1388/Chd/2018 A.Y.2013-14

it was his bounden duty to adjudicate the case and not to restore the matter to assessing officer vide order of Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No.l241/Chd/2017 dated 22.01.2018 ? (vii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not perverse in directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT when the taxpayer was claiming brought forward MAT credit which can be allowed if the tax payable is under other provisions is more than the MAT, whereas in this year tax had been paid/payable per MAT? (viii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not perverse in accepting tax payer's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble SC in CIT Vs. Karnataka soaps and detergents which is not applicable to the case of the assessee as the assessee had made no claim in the return of income? (ix) It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing officer may be restored. (X) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or is disposed off.” 3. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the solitary

grievance of the Revenue was against the direction given by

the CIT(A) to the AO to compute the MAT tax payable by the

assessee, after verifying the claim of the assessee. It was

pointed out that in the various grounds raised by the

Revenue, this was the only grievance.

out that after framing the assessment on the assessee u/s

143(3) of the Act at Rs.10,01,28,000/-, the A.O. had raised a

4 ITA No.1388/Chd/2018 A.Y.2013-14

demand of Rs.10,47,14,270/- and no tax computation sheet

had been issued. It was pointed out that there was nothing

in the assessment order also to indicate as to how the

demand had been computed at a figure which was more than

the income assessed. Accordingly, the assessee raised a

ground against the demand raised by the A.O. ,in the appeal

field before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) directed the A.O. to

verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT

accordingly, and if any credit was due to the assessee as per

law, he directed the same be given to the assessee. Our

attention was drawn to para Nos.8.1 & 8.2 of the CIT(A)’s

order as under:

“8.1 During appellate proceedings AR of the assessee filed written submissions, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "The AO raised the demand at Rs. 10.47,14,270 against assessee vide Notice of demand dated 28.12.2017 under section 156 without issuing any tax computation sheet. There is nothing in the assessment order to indicate as to how the demand of Rs.10,47,14,270/- has been computed on regular income of Rs.10,01,28,924/- computed by the AO and Nil book profit. There is no indication as to how the demand has exceeded even the assessed income and how much credit has been allowed for taxes paid by way of TDS, Advance Tax, Self assessment tax, Post assessment tax and out of accumulated MAT credit. The AO may be directed to take the book profit at Rs.5,51,89,019 and compute MAT. Further the AO may be directed to compute tax payable/refundable after giving credit of accumulated MAT if available and after

5 ITA No.1388/Chd/2018 A.Y.2013-14

giving credit of taxes already paid. The AO may also be directed to give computation sheet. " 8.2 I have considered the submission of the assessee. The assessee vide the said ground has contended that the AO has computed demand at Rs.10,47,14,270/- without issuing computation sheet on the income of Rs.10,01,28,924/- and taking book profit as 'Nil' as against a book profit at Rs.5,51,89,019/- claimed by the assessee. In view of the submission of the assessee, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and compute the MAT accordingly and if any credit is due to the appellant as per law, the same should be given to the appellant. The ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. The Ld. DR contended that as per the provisions of

section 251(1) of the Act the CIT(A) could not remand any

matter to the A.O. and, therefore, the impugned direction

given by the CIT(A) was not as per law.

supported the order of the CIT(A).

grievance of the Revenue is against the direction given by

the CIT(A) to the A.O. to compute the tax payable under MAT

and after verifying the claim of the assessee of its book

profits amounting to Rs.5,51,89,019/.Considering the

pleadings made by the Revenue, we set aside the order of the

Ld.CIT(A) giving aforestated direction and at the same time,

we also direct the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue himself

6 ITA No.1388/Chd/2018 A.Y.2013-14

after calling for a Remand Report on the facts of the issue from the A.O.

Order pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- सतबीर �संह गोदारा अ�नपूणा� गु�ता (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SATBIR SINGH GODARA ) �याय�क सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �दनांक /Dated: 23rd July, 2019 *रती* आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar