Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the validity of revision order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai for assessment year 2008-09. 2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessment for the year under consideration was completed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the assessment record, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed bond issue expenses to the tune of Rs.3.05 cores and the AO has allowed 75% of the same and disallowed 25% thereof. The ld. CIT(A) took the view that the provisions of section 35D of the Act is applicable to the expenses claimed by the assessee and accordingly, took the 2
view that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated the revision proceedings and set aside the assessment order with a direction to disallow the expenses as per the provisions of section 35 D of the Act.
During the course of hearing, the ld AR strongly opposed the revision order.
On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the AO has passed the assessment order without considering the provisions of section 35D of the Act and hence the incorrect appreciation of law would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: a) CIT V/s Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati); and b) Booke Bond India Ltd V/s CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC).
Having heard the rival submissions, we find that the AO has not examined the claim of the assessee in terms of section 35D of the Act and hence incorrect appreciation of law would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Oct, 2015 (B. R. BASKARAN) (AMARJIT SINGH) रेखा सदस्म / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्मायमक सदस्म/JUDICIAL MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 16th Oct, 2015 व.यन.स./ SRL
आदेश की प्रनिलऱपि अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रयतयनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,
ITAT, Mumbai गाडड पाईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर (Dy./Asstt.