MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1045/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2017AY 2003-044 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed rectification applications under Section 154 after the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3). The assessee contended that the total income under Section 115JB was computed in excess and sought adjustments to the deduction under Section 80HHC. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding it was not maintainable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the CIT(A) after a rectification order. The Tribunal also considered the grounds related to the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC and book profits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 115JB,Section 80HHC,Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved
For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Hearing: 20/02/2017

O R D E R PER D. T. GARASIA, JM:

These appeals filed by the assessee on following grounds:

1. Dismissing the appeal by holding that no appealable issue arose from the impugned order.

2. Exclusive of entire DEPB income of Rs. 8,85,36,943/- while computing profits eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC.

2 Mufatlal Industries Ltd. & 1046/Mum/2015 3. Restricting deduction u/s 80HHC to 50% of the eligible profits (while computing “books profits” u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

Credit for tax deducted at source.

5. Credit for tax paid on regular assessment on 31st March 2006.

6.

Credit for tax paid on regular assessment during the period December 2010 to 31st July 2011.

7.

Computation of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8.

Computation of interest u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

9.

Levy of interest u/s 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

10.

Non-granting of interest u/s 244A.

The short facts of the case are as under:

3.

In both these cases the assessee has filed the rectification application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. In the instant case the order u/s 143(3) was passed on 10/03/2008 taking the total income u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs.18,47,77,621/- and thereby raising the demand of Rs.1,67,90,252/-. The company has submitted the total income u/s 115JB of the Act has been computed in excess by Rs.2,21,78,262/-. For calculating eligible profits for deduction under 80HHC the export incentives was taken at Rs. 8,85,36,943/- in support of Rs. 6,63,58,681/- being proportionate amount as return by the assessee verification of the record. The Assessing Officer found that the mistake is apparent from records therefore, he rectified order u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961.

Thereafter, matter went to CIT(A) and CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.

3 Mufatlal Industries Ltd. & 1046/Mum/2015 4. The Ld. AR submitted that similar issue in the case of the assessee and the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 6635/Mum/2013 has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee and the matter was restored to CIT(A) holding that the appeal is maintainable under Clause (c) Section 246 of the IT Act. Therefore, this appeal may be also restored to CIT(A) as per the direction has given in that Tribunal order. The Ld. DR had no objection.

5.

We have heard the rival contention of both the parties we find that in assessee’s own case for AY 2002-03 the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal was not maintainable but the Tribunal has held that the appeal is maintainable therefore we respectively following the same we allow the appeal and restored to the file of CIT(A). The Tribunal in has held as under:

From the above, it is evident that the Tribunal for coming to the said conclusions, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Caltex Oil Refining India (Ltd) vs. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 375. On perusal of the said judgment, it is the finding of the jurisdictional High Court that the orders giving effect to the directions of the appellate orders are maintainable under clause (c) to section 246 of the Act. The said judgment is applicable for the AYs 1970-71 and 1972-73 under the old provisions which is para materia to section 246 of the Act. Considering the order of the CIT (A) on the issue of maintainability of appeal needs to be reversed. Consequently, we remand this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal and adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee on merits mentioned in ground nos. 2 to 12, if any. For this, CIT (A) may call for remand report, if any, from 4 Mufatlal Industries Ltd. & 1046/Mum/2015 the AO in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6. We respectively following the same we allow the appeal as per the above direction. 20th February 2017 7. Judgement Pronounced in the open court on Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 20th February, 2017 *Rahul Sharma* Copy to: 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT(A) concerned 4) The CIT concerned 5) The D.R, “B” Bench, Mumbai 6) Guard file

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →