Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F”
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appealfiled by the assesseeis against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai, dated 31.12.15 for AY 2011-12 on the grounds mentioned herein below:-
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. 1) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 14,75,806/- u/s 14A as per rule 8D.
2) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,06,27,007/- being provision for excess processing SUUTI (foreclosure).
3) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in adding a sum of Rs. 43,38,769/- as Rent Income and treated as Business Income ignoring the facts and material placed on record and wrongly arriving at income figure.
6) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 18,26,702/- being prior period expenses.
7) Recovery proceedings for recovery of demand raised maybe stayed
8) The Appellant reserves the right to add, to delete and / or amend any of the foregoing grounds..
At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of several calls and even no UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.
As per the facts of the present case, the assessee is as Government Company as per the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of services like services ion the capacity of Registrar and transfer agent, issuance of PAN/EPIC/DL, cards on behalf of the government, real estate agent, consulting engineer, interior decorators, architect maintenance or repairs, management consultant, technical inspection & certification services and renting of immovable property service. The return of income was e-filed on 26.09.11 declaring total income of Rs. 38,79,24,680/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and after serving statutory notice and seeking reply, order of assessment u/s 143(3) was passed by AO thereby making addition.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the assessee has preferred the appeal by raising the above grounds.
Ground No. 1. 4. This groundraised by the assesseerelates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A)in disallowing a sum of Rs. 14,75,806/- u/s 14A as per rule 8D.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the assessee in para no. 2.4.1 & 2.4.2 ofits order. After having gone through the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT had rightly concluded that AO had made the disallowance strictly as per Rule 8D and since the assessee had not provided any information or rebutted the calculation made by Ld. AO in respect of average amount of UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. investments. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order passed by the AO in respect of disallowance of Rs. 22,15,988/-. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
Ground No. 2. 6. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,06,27,007/- being provision for excess processing SUUTI.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. ground raised by the assessee in para no. 2.4.3 of its order. After having gone through the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT had rightly upheld the order of AO and concluded that AO had made the disallowance as he found that it was merely a provision. And while doing so, Ld. CIT(A) had considered the order sheet noting dated 28.12.15, wherein it was reflected that the AO had already rectified the additions made and hence, considering the above fact, the said ground was rightly dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) thereby upholding the order of AO. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. Ground No. 3. 8. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in adding a sum of Rs. 43,38,769/- as Rent Income and treated as Business Income ignoring the facts and material placed on record and wrongly arriving at income figure.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above ground raised by the assessee in para no. 2.4.4 & 2.4.5 of its order. After having gone through the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT(A) while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambu Investments Ltd. 249 ITR 47 and Chennai Properties & Investment Vrs. Cit (TS-238-SC-2015)/(2015) 56 taxmann.com456(SC) had rightly upheld the order of AO and also after appreciating the fact that AO had made the addition as he found that as per tax audit report, the business of the assessee company included ‘renting activities’.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
Ground No. 4 (wrongly numbered as Gr. No. 6). 10. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in disallowing a sum of Rs. 18,26,702/- being prior period expenses.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above ground raised by the assessee in para no. 2.4.9 & 2.4.10 of its order. After having gone through the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT had rightly upheld the order of UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. AOafter appreciating the fact that as per accounting principles, any income or expenditure has to be charged and brought to tax or allowed only in the year of business to which it pertains. Since the assessee has not been able to prove that these expenses were provided for to meet the prior period income, therefore the said ground was rightly dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
Ground No. 5 & 6 (wrongly number as Gr. No. 7 & 8) 12. These grounds are general in nature, thus requires no specific adjudication.