Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
Captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 1st November 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2010–11.
Before we proceed to dispose off the appeal, it is necessary to provide a brief factual backdrop.
2 Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.
This appeal was originally heard by the Bench on 5th May 2016.
By a consolidated order dated 31st May 2016, the Bench had disposed off the appeals pertaining to the assessment years 2009–10 and 2010–11 in & 791/Mum./2014. While disposing off the appeals as aforesaid, since, the Tribunal had not dealt with and decided the additional ground, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Act and the Tribunal, vide order dated 12th September 2018, in M.A. no.305/Mum./2016, recalled the order passed in ITA no.791/Mum./2014, only for the purpose of deciding the addition ground raised by the assessee. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is before us.
The additional grounds raised by the assessee read as under:–
i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the Assessing Officer erred in not treating TUF subsidy of ` 325.94 lakh as capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. ii) The A.O. failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the subsidy granted by the Central Government on account of interest refund under Technology Up–gradation Fund Scheme is capital in nature as the object of the subsidy is to sustain competitiveness in the domestic as well as international markets and overall long term viability of the Textile Industry. iii) The Appellant prays that the learned A.O. be directed to increase the deduction allowed to the assessee on account of interest cost by ` 325.94 lakh being TUF subsidy deducted from interest cost claimed during the year.
3 Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.
Dr. K. Shivaram, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the dispute raised in the additional ground is a recurring issue and also arose in other assessment years. He submitted, the assessee had raised similar additional grounds in its appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) in assessment year 2011–12. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) refused to admit the additional grounds. He submitted, while deciding assessee’s appeal the Tribunal restored the issue to learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to adjudicate the additional grounds. Further, he submitted, while adjudicating the additional grounds in assessment year 2011–12, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed assessee’s claim. He submitted, the same view has been expressed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue in assessment years 2012–13 and 2013–14. Thus, he submitted, the additional grounds may be admitted and issue raised therein may be restored back to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The learned Departmental Representative has not opposed admission of additional grounds and restoration of the issue to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It is evident, the issue raised in the additional grounds is a 4 Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.
recurring issue between the parties and also arose in different assessment years. In fact, the assessee had raised similar additional grounds in assessment year 2011–12 before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) refused to admit the additional grounds. While deciding assessee’s appeal challenging the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal in the order dated 18.05.2018 in restored the issue to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merit. It has been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the assessee that while deciding the issue in the assessment years 2011–12, 2012– 13 and 2013–14, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed assessee’s claim. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee. However, considering the fact that these grounds were raised for the first time before us and in assessment year 2011–12 the Tribunal had restored similar issue for adjudication by learned Commissioner (Appeals), we restore the issue raised in the additional grounds to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.
5 Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.09.2019