MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 9, PUNE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE : [HYBRID HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE : [HYBRID HEARING]
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.247/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018
Mahle Anand Thermal The ACIT, Circle-9, Systems Private Limited, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 29-Milestone, Pune- Dr. Ambedkar Marg, vs. Nashik Highway Chakan, Near Akurdi Railway Station, PIN - 410 501. Maharashtra. Pune – 411 044. PAN AABCB2186L Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Shri Viksit Bhargava For Revenue : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment years 2017-
2018, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in
short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/
250/2023-24/1058843681(1), dated 18.12.2023, involving
proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
“the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
The assessee pleads the following substantive
grounds in the instant appeal :
2 ITA.No.247/PUN./2024
3 ITA.No.247/PUN./2024
It emerges during the course of hearing that the
assessee has filed its adjournment request reading as under :
Suffice to say, there could be hardly any dispute
that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance herein seeks to
claim it’s sec.35(2AB) weighted deduction claim rejected in
4 ITA.No.247/PUN./2024
both the learned lower authorities respective order(s). The
assessee is fair enough indeed in it’s foregoing adjournment
averments that the prescribed authority i.e., Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research (“DSIR”) has already
rejected it’s application “Form-3CL” on March 18, 2024. Faced
with this situation, we are of the considered view in light of
Rule6(7A)(b)(ii) that quantification of the impugned
expenditure by the above prescribed authority, for the purpose
of claiming sec.35(2AB) relief, indeed forms a mandatory
condition from 01.07.2016 onwards relevant to assessment
year 2017-2018 before us. We thus see no merit in the
assessee’s foregoing adjournment request at this stage in very
terms subject to all just exceptions.
Learned counsel at this stage fairly informed us that
the assessee has filed it’s sec.154 rectification before the lower
appellate authority regarding alternative claim of deduction
u/sec.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.37 of the Act. He sought to buttress the
point that the learned NFAC has nowhere adjudicated the
same. Without commenting anything on merits, we conclude
in this factual backdrop that it shall be very much open to the
assessee to pursue it’s above stated sec.154 rectification, if
any, as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
5 ITA.No.247/PUN./2024
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for
statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.05.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 28th May, 2024
VBP/-
Copy to
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A) concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
