BALAJI INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. 2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 201/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 February 2021AY 2008-096 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence and grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the entire matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in port development, filed its return declaring capital gains and nil business income. The Assessing Officer made several disallowances and additions, re-computing the income. The assessee filed additional evidence and grounds before the CIT(A), which were not admitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and grounds of appeal. Whether various disallowances and additions made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: HON’BLE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina
For Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen
Hearing: 09/02/2021Pronounced: 17/02/2021

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2008-09 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-4/IT-157/Addl. CIT-2(1)/2010-11 dated 01/10/2012 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 27/12/2010 by the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

M/s. Balaji Infra Projects Ltd.,

2.

The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal set below are without prejudice to one another:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of site development expenses of Rs.15,01,500/- and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

2. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the additional evidences filed by the appellant relating to interest expenditure of Rs.5,88,45,488/- capitalized under the head Capital Work in Progress and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

2. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities erred in denying the capitalization of expenses under the head Capital Work in Progress of Rs.6,29,58,517/- and the reasons assigned for doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. and Rules made thereunder.

2. (c) Without prejudice to the Ground of Appeal No, 2(b) above, the lower authorities ought to have treated the expenses of Rs.6,29,58,517/- as revenue expenditure incurred for port business and allowed the same as deduction from business income and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

3. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities erred in making the disallowance of proportionate operative and administrative expenses of Rs.29,73,524/- u/s. 14A and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. and Rules made thereunder.

3. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities erred in making the disallowance of the interest expenditure of Rs. 5,88,45,488/- as expenditure incurred for earning exempt income u/s. 14A without appreciating that no such deduction was claimed from the business income and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

M/s. Balaji Infra Projects Ltd.,

4. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 29,91,061/- made by the learned Assessing Officer as expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, being double addition over and above the disallowance made u/s. 14A of Rs. 29.73,524/- and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder. 4. (b) Without prejudice to the Ground of Appeal

No. 4(a) above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal filed by the appellant relating to allowance of business expenditure aggregating to Rs. 43,22,643/- as against only Rs. 13,31,582/- and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

4. (c) Without prejudice to the Ground of Appeal No. 4(a) above, the lower authorities ought to have allowed the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.43,22,643/- (Rs.13,31,582/- + Rs.29,91,061/-) as against only Rs. 13,31,582/- and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

5. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal filed by the appellant relating to charging of interest income under the head "Income from Business & Profession' instead of Income from Other Sources' and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

5. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities ought to have assessed the interest income under the head 'Income from Business & Profession' instead of 'Income from Other Sources' and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

6. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal filed by the appellant relating to allowance of claim of depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.5,27,499/- as against Rs.3,99,105/- as per Companies Act, 1956 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder.

M/s. Balaji Infra Projects Ltd.,

6.

(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities ought to have allowed the claim of depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.5,27,499/- as against Rs.3.99,105/- as per Companies Act, 1956 and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

3.

We find that the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal contesting various issues before us. We find that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of development of ports and related infrastructure and had filed its return of income for the A.Y.2008-09 on 01/10/2008 declaring total income of Rs.91,85,840/-. The assessee company is a holding company of M/s. Dighi Port Ltd. It is said to be planning to set up FTWZ/SEZ around Dighi Port. The assessee had declared income by way of short term capital gains of Rs.91,85,836/- and business income at Rs. Nil. The ld. AO while completing the assessment had made several disallowances and re-computed the income of the assessee at Rs.170,60,046/-. The assessee had filed various additional evidences before the ld.CIT(A) in support of its claim of various expenses in order to contest the various disallowance and additions made by the ld. AO. These additional evidences were filed before the ld. CIT(A) on the premise that sufficient opportunities were not granted to the assessee by the ld. AO. The assessee had also filed the additional grounds before the ld. CIT(A). All these additional evidences and additional grounds of appeal were not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same and upheld the action of the ld. AO.

M/s. Balaji Infra Projects Ltd.,

4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us against each of the additions made and also on the preliminary point of non-admission of these additional evidences and additional grounds before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed before us that the entire matter needs to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all the additional evidences and additional grounds filed by it before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice. When this was put to ld. DR, he fairly agreed for sending back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of all the years in dispute before us. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play, to remand the entire issues in dispute before us to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider all the evidences and additional grounds including fresh evidences and fresh grounds, if any, that are submitted by the assessee before him. The ld. CIT(A) is hereby directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after due appreciation of all the facts and evidences on record. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17/02/2021 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →