SHIRPUIR GOLD REFINERY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

2 Assessment Year: 2001-02 However, on the said date the assessee sought adjournment and the hearing was re-fixed. Again on the date fixed for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Thereafter one more opportunity was given to the assessee to present its case but the assessee did not turn up. Ultimately, the AO rectified the mistake and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 8,99,908/-. Against the said order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)-20, Mumbai. The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order passed by the AO.

1. “Disallowance of Administrative and financial charges of Rs. 93,16,308/- U/s 154. 1.1 The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-20 Mumbai, has erred in confirming the order passed u/s 154 by the Dy. C.I.T. 9(3), Mumbai, disallowing administrative and financial charges at Rs. 93,16,308/- as against Rs. 84,16,400/- disallowed in order u/s 143 (30 read with sec. 147 dated 28.8.2006 and erred in not considering the fact that the impugned order is bad in law as there was no apparent mistake in the said order dated 28.8.2006 as the total expenses were disallowed by him to the extent of Rs. 84,16,398/- as discussed in Para 9. 1.2 Without Prejudice, the said C.I.T. (Appeal) and the A.O. erred in not allowing following statutory expenses of Rs. 16,79,323/-, which were incurred for the maintenance and existence of the appellant company and earning of taxable income.

Nature Rupees Listing Fees 51,500/- 3 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Board Meeting fees 25,000/- Legal & Professional fee 90,000/- Misc Expenses 11,485/- Bank Charges 15,01,338/- 16,79,323/-

“3.4 I have considered the facts of the case, findings of the “Assessing Officer and rival submission of the appellant carefully. I find no merit in all the grounds of appeal because as per order u/s 147 dated 28.08.2006 income was to be ascertained at Rs. 8,99,910/- whereas inadvertently Ld. Assessing Officer has taken assessable income at Nil. It is very evident from Para ‘8’ of order u/s 147 dated 28.08.2006 that administrative and financial expenses of Rs. 98,51,000/- were disallowed whereas the total returned loss was of Rs. 84,16,398/-. Thus, whi8le computing the income of the appellant a positive income of 4. Assessment Year: 2001-02 Rs. 8,99,910/- was to be mentioned which was remained to be mentioned hence there was apparent mistake from the record. Thus, Ld. Assessing Officer has very rightly rectified the mistake. It is however seen from the grounds of appeal that appellant has agitated against the additions made in order u/s 147 which is irrelevant because its appeal has been filed against order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, hence, appellant was to agitate as to how there is no apparent mistake from the record. Under this appeal merit of order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) cannot be decided hence I find no merit in all these grounds of appeal. Whereas the rectification made by the Assessing Officer is found to be correct so far as issue under appeal is concerned and is apparent from the record and rectifiable. In view of the above, all the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.”

8. Since, the AO has rectified the mistake apparent u/s 154 of the Act without interfering with the findings in the assessment order, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the rectification order passed by the AO. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) to interfere with. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2001- 2002 dismissed.