Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश /O R D E R
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-12/IT 25/DCIT 6(3)(2)/2015-16 dated
Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt.Ltd Assessment Year: 2010-11 20/07/2016. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -6(3)(2), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 10/03/2015. The revenue has raised the following effective grounds of appeal before us:- 1. “The Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to allow relief to the assessee by relying upon the order of the ITAT dated 23.06.2016, in the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act in A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11, wherein ITAT has considered the facts discussed by the AO in the consequential assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, which order was not subject matter of appeal before the ITAT.” 2. “The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to allow relief to the assessee by relying upon the order of the ITAT dated 23.06.2016, in the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT u/s.263 of the Act in A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11, wherein the ITAT has allowed the assessee not to press the issues relating to delayed payment of PF,ESI and computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act and dismissed the contention of the assessee relating to the same, when the same was not subject matter of any addition in the order passed by the CIT u/s.263 of the Act, inter-alia meaning ITAT upheld the finding of the CIT that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 3. “The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to allow relief to the assessee by relying upon the order of the ITAT dated 23.06.2016, in the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT u/s.263 of the Act in A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11, wherein the ITAT has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in the order passed u/s.263 of the Act, which, inter-alia, means ground of appeal Nos.1 & 2 taken by the assessee was disposed of as dismissed, hence the directions of the CIT in the order passed u/s.263 of the Act, was proper and valid.” Without prejudice to ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3, following grounds are taken in addition to the above. 4. “ The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.19,42,671/- on account the STT Expenses for disallowance u/s.14A vis-à- vis Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act,1961”.
5. The learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.31,36,884/- on account Clinical support Expenses.”
2. Briefly stated the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of ethical pharmaceutical was originally assessed u/s 143(3) on 20/03/2012 determining the loss at Rs.45.89 Crores under normal provisions and book profit of Rs.4.20 Crores u/s 115JB as against returned income of Rs.18.54 Lacs e-filed by the Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt.Ltd Assessment Year: 2010-11 assessee on 30/09/2010. The assessee filed revised computation during assessment proceedings declaring loss of Rs.46.31 crores since the business loss incurred by the assessee was not set off with the Long Term Capital Gains. Subsequently, the said order was subjected to revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 31/03/2014, pursuant to which quantum assessment under section 143(3) read with Section 263 was completed by Ld. AO on 10/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was re-determined at Rs.48.88 Lacs under normal provisions and Rs.1.17 crores u/s 115JB. Upon further appeal against the same, the Ld. CIT(A) has provided certain relief to the assessee vide impugned order dated 20/07/2016, against which the revenue is in further appeal before us.
3. In the meanwhile, the assessee contested the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 vide & 2702/Mum/2014 order dated 23/06/2016 wherein, the Tribunal has, inter-alia, considered the addition made by Ld. AO in consequential order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 and adjudicated the same on merits.
4. In the backdrop of above stated facts, it is noted that Ld. AO, in the consequential order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263, has made certain more additions / adjustments while determining the income under normal provisions as well as u/s 115JB. It is further noted that the consequential order of Ld. AO is dated 10/03/2015, which has duly been Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt.Ltd Assessment Year: 2010-11 considered by the Tribunal in its subsequent order dated 23/06/2016. The Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee against consequential order, has simply followed the decision of the Tribunal rendered on 23/06/2016. Therefore, we find that a view has already been taken by the Tribunal on merits and therefore, we refrain ourselves from delving into the same any further.
In view of the above stated facts, the Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee in terms of the cited order of the Tribunal for impugned AY, which makes impugned order infructuous.
Resultantly, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd March , 2018.