Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Asst Cit 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs Arrow Textile Ltd, Mumbai on 21 August, 2017
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SMC" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)
I.T.A. No. 3007/Mum/2017
(Assessment Year 2010-11)
ACIT 1(1)(1) M/s. Arrow Textile Ltd.
579, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 16A, Ali Chambers
M.K. Road Nagindas Master Road
Mumbai-400 020. Fort, Mumbai-400 001.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN No.AAGCA8907P
Assessee by Shri Bablu Singh
Department by Ms. N. Hemalatha
Date of Hearing 21.8.2017
Date of Pronouncement 21.8.2017
ORDER
The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.1.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A)-2, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-
11.
2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to grant refund.
3. I heard the parties and perused the record. The Assessing Officer completed assessment initially by raising demand of ` 1.64 lakhs. According to the assessee, the assessment has resulted in a refund and accordingly filed a petition u/s. 154 of the Act seeking refund. It is pertinent to note that the assessee had sought depreciation on Good will during the course of assessment proceedings and the same was allowed by the AO by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities (Civil appeal No.5961 of 2012 dated 22-08-2012) The petition filed by the assessee seeking refund was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the reasoning 2 M / s . Ar r o w T e x ti l e L td .
that the assessee did not make a specific claim for refund as per the provisions of sec. 239 of the Act.
4. In the appellate proceeding, the learned CIT(A) held that it is not fair to reject the refund claim simply for the reason that the assessee has paid self assessment tax. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that the Assessing Officer has raised demand by computing tax on the returned income instead of computing tax on assessed income. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow refund due to the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned CIT(A).
5. I have noticed that the refund has arisen to the assessee on account of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Provisions of section 143(3) states that the Assessing Officer shall determine sum payable by the assessee or refund of any amount due to the assessee on the basis of such assessment. Once the Assessing Officer himself determines the amount of refund due to the assessee, normally refund cheque is sent by the Assessing Officer. In the instant case, the assessee has paid self assessment tax, since it did not claim depreciation on Goodwill. Since the AO allowed the claim put to him during the course of assessment proceeding, the refund has arisen. Hence the Ld CIT(A) was justified in observing that the AO was not right in rejecting refund claim on the reasoning that the assessee has paid self assessment tax. Hence, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly I confirm his order.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 21.8.2017.
Sd/-
(B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 21/8/2017 3 M / s . Ar r o w T e x ti l e L td .
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File.
BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai