SHUBHLABH CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5553/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 April 2018AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its previous order for AY 2009-10, restored the three issues concerning disallowance of commission and provisional fees back to the AO for fresh consideration. Both parties agreed to this course of action.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of commission and provisional fees for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Tribunal had previously restored identical issues for AY 2006-07 and 2009-10 back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of commission and provisional fees for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 requires fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-13/IT-136/12-13 dated 30.10.2015. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2), Mumbai (in short ‘DCIT’) for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 07-02-2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The three issues raised by assessee in its appeal is as regards to the disallowance of commission pertaining to AY 2009-10 amounting to Rs. 21,66,847/-, disallowing of provisional fees pertaining to AY 2009-10 at Rs. 3 lacs and disallowance of commission fees pertaining to AY 2010- 11 amounting to Rs. 11,59,748/-. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed copy of Tribunals order for AY 2006-07 and 2009-10 in & 7212/Mum/2012 order dated 01.04.2016, wherein Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the AO in respect of all the three issues for afresh adjudication by observing in Para 4 as under:-

“4. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that all the three issues contested in these two appeals require fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer by considering the evidence that may be furnished by the assessee before him. We also noticed that the Tribunal has restored the identical issues contested by the assessee in A.Y. 2007-08 to the file of the Assessing Officer. Consistent with the view taken therein, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) in respect of the three issues contested before us in these two years and restore them to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine them afresh by duly considering the information and explanation that may be furnished by the assessee in that regard. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.”

3.

The learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Sr. DR fairly agreed that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO in term of the decision for AY 2009-10.

4.

After hearing both the sides and going through the case, we restore these three issues back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration to be decided by AO in term of the directions of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 11-04-2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →