DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FIRESTORM ELECTRONICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4434/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the income had already been considered in a prior assessment year and taxing it again would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal noted that the liability was continuously acknowledged until the creditor was struck off.

What were the facts?

The assessee company declared a liability in its books for several years. In the relevant assessment year, it wrote back this liability after learning the creditor company was struck off. The assessee then revised its return to offer this amount for taxation.

What were the issues?

Whether the write-back of a liability, due to the creditor company being struck off, constitutes income under Section 41(1) and if taxing it in the current year amounts to double taxation when it was already considered in a prior year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh I Shah, Shri Kewal Shah
For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Hearing: 16/04/2018Pronounced: 31/05/2018

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

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 2, Mumbai dated 23/03/2015 for A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act.

2.

Following ground has been taken by the Revenue:- 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the sum of Rs.7,01,46,841/- u/s.41(1) as this was voluntarily declared by the assessee in his revised return of income and no addition was made by the Assessing Officer in this regard.”

M/s. Firestorm Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in the business of investment, filed its original return of income on 27/09/2011 for A.Y.2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.90,39,740/- under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the assessee company filed a revised return on 22.02.2013 returning an income at Rs.7,91,86,220/-. The reason for revising the return was to offer the amount due to M/s Koel Manufacturing & Investment P. Ltd. for taxation, on account of cessation of liability. Thereafter, an assessment order u/s. 143(3] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed on 31.01.2014 and total income was determined at Rs.7,96,87,583/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO has taxed the said amount on the alleged ground that there was cessation of liability ignoring the fact that the said credit liability has already been taxed in the A.Y. 2009-10 in the hands of the assessee Company u/s 41(1) of the Act.

4.

By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the addition after having the following observation:- “As I have gone through the assessment order and argument given by the AR of , the appellant company. Since the income had already considered for the A.Y. 2009-10 and also the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs.7,01,46,481, the addition for the A.Y.2011-12 for the same issue is not justifiable as the income will amount to double addition of the same income. Hence, I hereby direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.7,01,46,481/- for the year under consideration. The Appellant filed appeal before Hon'ble ITAT against the CIT(A)'s Order for A.Y. 2009-10 which is pending for adjudication. In case ITAT decided this case in favour of the appellant, then addition made in the A.Y. 2011-12 will be binding on the appellant. Accordingly, n the appeal is allowed.”

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →